Harsh (Thomas) v. State ( 2014 )

 Mortensen v. State, 115 Nev. 273, 286, 986 P.2d 1105, 1114 (1999)
(internal quotation marks omitted). We review the district court's decision
to grant or deny a new trial for abuse of discretion. Servin v. State, 117
Nev. 775, 792, 32 P.3d 1277, 1289 (2001).
The record reveals that the district court reviewed the
pleadings, considered the parties' arguments, and found that the
bankruptcy documents were not newly discovered evidence because the
victim testified about her pending bankruptcy proceedings at trial, the
documents merely confirmed the victim's testimony that she did not
change the registration on her car while the bankruptcy proceedings were
pending, the documents were inadmissible extrinsic evidence under NRS
50.085(3), and the documents were cumulative because defense counsel
thoroughly cross-examined the victim about her ownership of the car and
her bankruptcy proceedings.' The district court further found that Harsh
failed to demonstrate that the documents would be offered for something
more than contradicting, impeaching, or discrediting a former witness or
that the trial result would have been different if the witness was
impeached with the documents. And the district court determined that
Harsh failed to make a factual showing that would justify an evidentiary
hearing and did not satisfy the requirements for a new tria1. 2
'Our review of the trial transcript reveals that testimony regarding
the victim's bankruptcy proceedings was brought out during direct-
examination but was not explored on cross-examination.
2 During the hearing on the motion for a new trial, Harsh informed
the district court that the evidentiary hearing was necessary to determine
whether defense counsel could have discovered or produced the
bankruptcy documents at trial with the exercise of due diligence.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A ceo
Having reviewed the evidence at issue and the record before
us, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
denying Harsh's request for an evidentiary hearing and motion for a new
trial. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
tee,4,t1/4-1 , J.
Hardesty
J. Ch24T.
Douglas Cherry
cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge
Oronoz & Ericsson
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(01 1947A cafe4.9
WI 1