Maywell (Omar) v. State ( 2015 )

 will disturb the district court's ruling only if it was manifestly wrong.
Crawford v. State, 107 Nev. 345, 348, 811 P.2d 67, 69 (1991).
Maywell's convictions arose from his use of another person's
driver's license and social security card in an attempt to cash a forged
check made out to that other person and Maywell's possession of two
additional fraudulent checks. The district court ruled that the State could
introduce three of Maywell's prior convictions, all of which involved
attempting to cash forged checks, and two of which involved using the
identification of another. Maywell had pleaded guilty in each case, and
certified copies of the judgments of conviction were presented to the court.
The district court found that the prior bad acts were relevant to the crimes
charged and were for purposes other than proving Maywell's criminal
propensity. In light of the similarities of the circumstances of his prior
offenses to those for which Maywell was on trial, Maywell has not
demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in concluding
that the prior convictions were relevant, because they show Maywell's
intent to defraud, absence of mistake, and knowledge of the appearance of
a forged check. Maywell's reliance on United States v. Bagley to the
contrary was unavailing as that case analyzed the admission of prior
convictions for impeachment purposes, 772 F.2d 482, 488 (9th Cir. 1985),
not for purposes such as those listed in NRS 48.045(2).
Maywell has also failed to demonstrate that the district court's
conclusions as to the last two Bigpond elements were an abuse of
discretion. His bare claim that the prior acts were not proven by clear and
convincing evidence is unsupported by relevant authority or cogent
argument, and we thus need not consider it. Maresca v. State, 103 Nev.
669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). Finally, the probative value of the evidence
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A 441291j44
was not substantially outweighed by any danger of undue prejudice. The
State ultimately introduced at trial evidence of only one prior conviction,
Maywell does not dispute that the jury was properly instructed on the use
of that evidence, see Hymon v. State, 121 Nev. 200, 211, 111 P.3d 1092,
1100 (2005) (presuming the jury follows its instructions), and there was
substantial evidence of Maywell's guilt. Maywell was in possession of
three checks that had been washed to remove the account holder's
information, false account holder information was substituted that
corresponded to the identification that Maywell presented, the
identification belonged to another person whom Maywell represented
himself to be, and he attempted to utter one of the forged checks
Maywell also argues that the district court engaged in judicial
misconduct that violated his due process right to a fair trial and that he is
therefore entitled to a new trial. After being asked by defense counsel, the
district court explained in the presence of the jury why it sustained the
State's objection, and then continued on saying, in relevant part, "Mou
repeated the question because you didn't like the answer you got."
Counsel made a record of his objection to the district court's " personal"
and "disparaging" commentary. We review the district court's conduct in
its entirety and seek to determine whether it influenced the jury's verdict.
Oade v. State, 114 Nev. 619, 624, 960 P.2d 336, 339 - 40(1998). "The level
of misconduct necessary to reverse a conviction depends upon how strong
and convincing is the evidence of guilt." Id. at 624, 960 P.2d 339.
Although the district court's opinion as to why counsel posed a question
was unnecessary and improper, it did not prejudice Maywell. It was one
isolated comment, the jury had been given the standard admonition not to
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A ae
infer anything from the presiding judge's comments, and there was
substantial evidence of guilt.
Having concluded that Maywell's claims are without merit, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
ditto,
Saitta
Gibboris
J.
cc: Hon. Valerie J. Vega, District Judge
Clark County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(C) 1947A ae