deadly weapon causing substantial bodily harm. See NRS 

200.481(2)(g)(2). While he contends that other evidence contradicted this 

testimony, it was for the jury to determine the weight and credibility to 

give the conflicting testimony. Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 73, 624 P.2d 

20, 20 (1981). 

Second, Newcastle argues that the district court erred in 

denying his motion to dismiss based on a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 

373 U.S. 83 (1963). He asserts that the State failed to disclose video 

evidence that indicated that Officer Green handled the purported weapon, 

a large mixing paddle, without gloves and had checked the weapon out to 

other inmates that day. The video also showed the door to the crime scene 

could be opened without breaking the evidence tape. We conclude that 

this claim lacks merit. w[T]here are three components to a Brady 

violation: the evidence at issue is favorable to the accused; the evidence 

was withheld by the state, either intentionally or inadvertently; and 

prejudice ensued, i.e., the evidence was material." Browning v. State, 120 

Nev. 347, 369, 91 P.3d 39, 54 (2004) (quoting Mazzan v. Warden, 116 Nev. 

48, 67, 993 P.2d 25, 37 (2000)). Evidence explaining the presence of 

another's DNA on the purported weapon and showing that the crime scene 

was not secure was favorable to Newcastle. However, the State did not 

withhold the evidence, but produced it during trial. The district court 

permitted Newcastle to recall Officer Green for examination about the 

statement he made in the video. Moreover, Newcastle failed to 

demonstrate the late disclosed evidence was material. In light of the 

evidence that he was found standing above the victim holding a large 

mixing paddle, admitted that he "did it," and the victim's blood was found 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
on the paddle and his clothing, he failed to demonstrate prejudice 

resulting from the late disclosure. 

Third, Newcastle argues that the district court erred in 

denying his motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. He 

contends that two jurors expressed the sentiment that Newcastle "was in 

prison for a reason," which seemed to indicate they were disregarding the 

instruction regarding Newcastle's presumption of innocence. In order to 

"prevail on a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct, the 

defendant must present admissible evidence sufficient to establish: (1) the 

occurrence of juror misconduct, and (2) a showing that the misconduct was 

prejudicial." Meyer v. State, 119 Nev. 554, 563-64, 80 P.3d 447, 455 (2003). 

"A jury's failure to follow a district court's instruction is intrinsic juror 

misconduct." See Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1186, 196 P.3d 465, 475 

(2008). "[O]ily in extreme circumstances will intrinsic misconduct justify 

a new trial." Id. at 565, 80 P.3d at 456. We conclude that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that this situation did not 

arise to such a level. See Servin v. State, 117 Nev. 775, 792, 32 P.3d 1277, 

1289 (2001) (reviewing district court decision on timely motion for new 

trial for abuse of discretion). The comments may have indicated that the 

jurors had disregarded the instructions by considering improper, 

unadmitted character evidence. However, considering the aforementioned 

evidence of Newcastle's guilt and that the expressed sentiment of the 

jurors would be the same regarding any of the other possible perpetrators, 

Newcastle failed to demonstrate a "reasonable probability or likelihood 

that the juror misconduct affected the verdict." Meyer, 119 Nev. at 564, 80 

P.3d at 455. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1047A e 
J. 

Having considered Newcastle's contentions and concluded that 

they lack merit, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

-10-A AA 

Hardesty 

------Ae Douglas CrA' 

J. 

J. 

cc: Hon. Steve L. Dobrescu, District Judge 

State Public Defender/Ely 

State Public Defender/Carson City 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Attorney General/Ely 

White Pine County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 194m e