Opinion ID: 2615564
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to object to the jury instruction concerning the statute of limitations for sale of a controlled substance

Text: McNelton argues that his trial counsel were ineffective for failing to object to guilt phase jury instruction 18(a): In the State of Nevada the statute of limitations for the sale of a controlled substance is three years. This means that the office of the District Attorney may not commence a criminal proceeding against a suspect for sale of a controlled substance more than three years after the crime was committed. There is no statute of limitations for murder. McNelton argues that this instruction misled the jury about the fact that prosecution witnesses were receiving favorable treatment for their testimony, possibly because the instruction implied that the state's alleged failure to commence a criminal proceeding against prosecution witnesses indicated those witnesses were innocent. McNelton also argues that the jury was not alerted to those witnesses' bias in favor of the state. We conclude that this instruction did not mislead the jury in the manner McNelton suggests. First, McNelton does not produce any support for this argument, other than to generally allege that the state did not prosecute certain witnesses for selling drugs in exchange for their testimony. Although McNelton does not specify which witnesses received favorable treatment, he is presumably referring to Andre and Linda Lee and Leroy Wilson. Second, the jury would not infer from the instruction that the state refrained from prosecuting those witnesses because they were not involved in selling drugs. Andre Lee and Leroy Wilson admitted on direct examination that they sold cocaine at the time of the shooting. The jury may have discounted their testimony based on those admissions, regardless of whether those witnesses were ever convicted for selling drugs on that occasion. The jury may also have discounted those witnesses' testimony based on information elicited on cross-examination. For example, Andre Lee testified on cross-examination that in March 1993, he was convicted of attempted accessory to commit burglary and received a suspended sentence of two years in prison. Andre Lee also admitted that the main source of his income in 1989 was narcotic sales and that he used narcotics. On cross-examination of Linda Lee, she admitted that she sold cocaine. Finally, Wilson testified on cross-examination that he used cocaine and that drug sales were his only source of income. Accordingly, we conclude that counsel were not ineffective on this ground.