Larson (Sean) v. State C/W 67946 ( 2015 )

 We conclude that Larson fails to demonstrate plain error.
Larson has not established that he possessed a Fourth or Fifth
Amendment right allowing him to refuse to cooperate with law
enforcement under the circumstances. See Meisler v. State, 130 Nev., Adv.
Op. 30, 321 P.3d 930, 933 (2014); see also Angle v. State, 113 Nev. 757, 763
n.2, 942 P.2d 177, 181 n.2 (1997). To the extent Larson alleges that relief
is warranted because he believed he had such a right, his failure to object
prevented this issue from being fully developed; moreover, any error is not
"so unmistakable that it is apparent from a casual inspection of the
record," Martinorellan v. State, 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 6, 343 P.3d 590, 593
(2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Larson also fails to
demonstrate actual prejudice. Green, 119 Nev. at 545, 80 P.3d at 95.
Second, Larson contends that the district court abused its
discretion by denying his motion for a new tria1. 1 See Sanborn v. State,
107 Nev. 399, 406, 812 P.2d 1279, 1284-85 (1991) (describing the factors
relevant for consideration regarding a motion for a new trial based on
newly discovered evidence). We conclude that no relief is warranted. The
district court correctly determined that the newly-offered statements,
which were made by Larson's codefendant while requesting leniency at
sentencing, had dubious value and would likely be viewed by a jury as
incriminating when considered in context. See Cutler v. State, 95 Nev.
427, 429, 596 P.2d 216, 217 (1979). We also agree that the statements
'We decline the State's invitation to reject this claim, but note that
appellant's appendix should always include all documents relevant to the
claim raised on appeal. See NRAP 30(b); NRAP 30(b)(1). We also decline
appellant's invitation to deem the State's response as a confession of error.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
would not make a different result "probable upon retrial." Sanborn, 107
Nev. at 406, 812 P.2d at 1284.
Having considered Larson's contentions and concluded that no
relief is warranted, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction and the judgment of the
district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Gibbons
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge
Lambrose Brown
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
3