Barbieri (Matthew) v. State ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                 Petrocelli2 hearing. He further argues that the evidence was inadmissible
    because it was more prejudicial than probative. We disagree.
    First, arguably the evidence did not refer to prior bad acts
    because the entries appear to reflect a future plan rather than a written
    recording suggesting that appellant took any action toward shooting a
    police officer and killing Danny and Rodger or accomplished those deeds.
    As such, no Petrocelli hearing was required before admitting the note.
    Second, even assuming a Petrocelli hearing should have been
    conducted, the error is not reversible when the record sufficiently
    establishes that the evidence was admissible under Tinch v. State, 
    113 Nev. 1170
    , 1176, 
    946 P.2d 1061
    , 1064-65 (1997) (setting forth test for
    admissibility of prior bad act evidence—"(1) the incident is relevant to the
    crime charged; (2) the act is proven by clear and convincing evidence; and
    (3) the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by
    the danger of unfair prejudice"), as amended by Bigpond v. State, 128 Nev.
    _7   -7   
    270 P.3d 1244
    , 1249-50 (2012), "or the trial result would have
    been the same had the trial court excluded the evidence." Diomampo v.
    State, 
    124 Nev. 414
    , 430, 
    185 P.3d 1031
    , 1041 (2008). Here, we conclude
    that the evidence met the Tinch test because it was relevant to the offense
    and proven by clear and convincing evidence based on the victim's
    identification of the handwriting in the note as belonging to appellant. We
    reject appellant's contention that the challenged evidence was more
    prejudicial than probative. Although the evidence was prejudicial, it was
    not unfairly prejudicial because it was probative of the perpetrator's
    2Petrocelli   v. State, 
    101 Nev. 46
    , 
    692 P.2d 503
     (1985).
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A
    identity and possible motive for committing the offense.       See NRS
    48.035(1); NRS 48.045(2).
    Having considered appellant's arguments and concluded that
    they lack merit, we
    ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
    ,J
    Hardesty
    Parraguirre                                Cherry
    cc: Chief Judge, Tenth Judicial District
    Hon. Robert E. Estes, Senior Judge
    Churchill County Public Defender
    Troy Curtis Jordan
    Churchill County District Attorney
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Churchill County Clerk
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 62073

Filed Date: 6/13/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021