Wood-Jimenez (Reina) v. State ( 2013 )

 Wood-Jimenez appears to assert that the district court erred
by questioning a juror after he indicated disagreement with the verdict
rather than directing the jury to continue deliberating or discharging the
jury. See NRS 175.531. The record before this court does not support
Wood-Jimenez's assertion that the district court questioned the juror after
he indicated disagreement with the verdict. Rather, the record indicates
that the district court questioned the juror after he indicated agreement
with the verdict. To the extent Wood-Jimenez alleges that the juror's
responses to the district court's questioning indicated a clear disagreement
with the guilty verdict, we conclude he fails to demonstrate plain error.
See Saletta, 127 Nev. at , 254 P.3d at 114.
Wood-Jimenez also asserts that the district court's questioning
of the juror was coercive. We conclude that Wood-Jimenez fails to
demonstrate that the substance of the district court's questioning was
plainly coercive. See generally id. at „ 254 P.3d at 113, 114 (jury
polling methods are within the district court's discretion and will not be
reversed on appeal unless the totality of the circumstances indicate that
methods were coercive; "NRS 175.531 is substantially similar to" Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(d)); State v. Lewis, 59 Nev. 262, 279-80, 91
P.2d 820, 826-27 (1939) (court's questioning of juror to clarify answer upon
polling was not coercive); 3 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice
and Procedure § 517 (4th ed. 2012) (noting that pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.
P. 31(d) a "court may exercise considerable discretion if a juror equivocates
on the verdict during a poll," and citing cases). Moreover, Wood-Jimenez
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
MEE A re 1
ni-1;11=13111/14WASI"
: ffitA
does not contend that the district court erred by questioning Rodriguez
after his agreement with the published verdict or by accepting the
unanimity of the verdict at the conclusion of the questioning. Accordingly,
we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 1
Hardesty
119.4tXt''
Cherry
cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge
Washoe County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
'Although we filed the fast track appendix submitted by Wood-
Jimenez, it fails to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure.
All volumes of the appendix are not paginated sequentially and the
appendix does not contain a single alphabetical index for all documents in
each volume. See NRAP 3C(e)(2)(C); NRAP 30(c). We caution Wood-
Jimenez's counsel, John Reese Petty, that the future failure to comply
with the rules when preparing briefs and appendices may result in the
imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n); Smith v. Emery, 109 Nev. 737,
743, 856 P.2d 1386, 1390 (1993).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
1;57 Mil=11 ,,,,,IIIMINEEMENEMESEMPIESEMEMURMISIMAKI7 • .711111001a7ft