novo review." Paige v. State, 116 Nev. 206, 208, 995 P.2d 1020, 1021 

(2000). 

Here, it was established that the victim, who lived on a ranch 

with Fields in Elko County and did not have access to a vehicle or a 

private phone, was last seen in Elko County and was most likely dead 

within 24 hours thereafter. There was testimony that Fields disclosed to 

her sister-in-law that she hit a man in the head with a pipe after she 

caught him performing a sexual act on her grandson in the shed and that 

the body was taken to Salt Lake City and dumped. We conclude that 

sufficient evidence was presented to establish jurisdiction within Nevada. 

See Shannon, 105 Nev. at 792, 783 P.2d at 948 ("[NRS 171.020] does not 

require that there be partial execution of the actual crime; it only requires 

some carrying out of the criminal intent."). 

Second, Fields contends that the district court erred by 

excluding evidence of her polygraph exam. Fields asks us to reconsider 

the law regarding the admissibility of polygraph exam results and to 

establish safeguards and conditions for the admissibility of such evidence. 

We conclude that reconsideration is unnecessary as we have established 

proper conditions and safeguards for the admittance of polygraph exams. 

See Jackson v. State, 116 Nev. 334, 335-36, 997 P.2d 121, 121-22 (2000); 

Corbett v. State, 94 Nev. 643, 644-45, 584 P.2d 704, 705 (1978). Here, 

there was no stipulation providing for Field's submission to the test or for 

subsequent admission at trial. Moreover, all data from the exam, save for 

the examiner's final, written report, had been destroyed and therefore was 

not subject to independent examination. Therefore, the district court 

properly excluded the polygraph evidence. See Corbett, 94 Nev. at 644-47, 

584 P.2d at 705-06. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e 
Third, Fields claims that the district court erred by admitting 

phone calls she had with her husband while she was in jail. Fields argues 

that law enforcement was not authorized to intercept a jail inmate's 

telephone conversations, that law enforcement failed to comply with the 

notice requirement of NRS 209.419(1)(b), that the use of the recordings 

should be prohibited in any criminal proceeding other than offenses 

directly involving jail security, and that the conversations were privileged. 

Initially, we note that the only objection made regarding this 

evidence during Fields's retrial was a brief, oral renewal of the objection 

made during the first trial. No transcripts from the first trial were 

provided in the record currently before this court. In reviewing the record 

provided, we conclude that Fields did not argue below that law 

enforcement was not authorized to intercept a jail inmate's telephone 

conversations, that law enforcement failed to comply with the notice 

requirement of NRS 209.419(1)(b), or that the use of the recordings should 

be prohibited in any criminal proceeding other than offenses directly 

involving jail security. Therefore, we need not consider these arguments 

in the first instance on appeal. See Davis v. State, 107 Nev. 600, 606, 817 

P.2d 1169, 1173 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Means v. State, 120 

Nev. 1001, 1012-13, 103 P.3d 25, 33 (2004). 

As to Fields's remaining contention, that the conversations 

were privileged, a district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence is 

reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Ramet v. State, 125 Nev. 195, 198, 

209 P.3d 268, 269 (2009). In its order admitting the jailhouse phone calls, 

the district court determined that all calls out of the jail were recorded and 

monitored for the purpose of jail security, a purpose within the ordinary 

course of law enforcement's duties, and that the system verbally informed 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A 
Gibbons Pickering 

J. 

the parties that the conversation was being monitored and recorded. As 

both parties were made aware that the call was being recorded, the 

expectation of confidentiality required to sustain a claim of marital 

privilege under NRS 49.295 was defeated. See Fields v. State, 125 Nev. 

785, 796-97, 220 P.3d 709, 717 (2009). Additionally, we note that while 

the unauthorized interception of wire or oral communications is 

prohibited, see NRS 200.620; NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, "wire or 

oral communications aurally acquired through use of regularly installed 

telephone equipment by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the 

ordinary course of his duties does not constitute an 'interception." State v. 

Reyes, 107 Nev. 191, 197, 808 P.2d 544, 547 (1991) (emphasis added). 

Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion 

by admitting the jailhouse phone calls. 

Having considered Fields's contentions and concluded that no 

relief is warranted, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

cc: Hon. Nancy L. Porter, District Judge 

Brian D. Green 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Elko County District Attorney 

Elko County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) [947A