Opinion ID: 1115981
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: rulings on evidence and testimony

Text: Detective Burton Levos testified concerning appellant's nonverbal response to Levos' question: Are you involved in the case of the jail in reference to Nobles' murder? McKenna's response, a look, a nod yes, and a smile, was made at an interview conducted on January 8, 1979. [4] McKenna first contends that his nonverbal response was privileged as a plea negotiation under NRS 48.125. [5] In determining whether a discussion can be properly characterized as a plea negotiation, we must consider the accused's subjective expectation of negotiating a plea at the time of discussion, and the reasonableness of that expectation. See U.S. v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-1241 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 858, 101 S.Ct. 157, 66 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980), citing U.S. v. Robertson, 582 F.2d 1356, 1366 (5th Cir.1978). McKenna was informed by Levos that he and Detective Samolovitch lacked authority to make deals, but that he would relay any information to the District Attorney's office. He also testified that he asked McKenna to read the Miranda Person Arrested Rights Card out loud at the beginning of the interview and McKenna indicated that he understood its contents. The facts clearly show that McKenna could not have entertained a reasonable expectation that Levos and Samolovitch were authorized to negotiate a plea. Blackwell v. State, 663 P.2d 12, 15 (Okl. Crim.App. 1983). Therefore, we reject this assignment of error. Next, appellant now contends that his response was ambiguous and therefore inadmissible under our holding in Harrison v. State, 96 Nev. 347, 608 P.2d 1107 (1980). No objection was made at trial to the admission of the nonverbal response on the ground it was ambiguous. In Harrison we stated: If an incriminating statement is heard and understood by an accused, and his response justifies an inference that he agreed or adopted the admission, then evidence of the statement is admissible at trial. Id. at 349, 608 P.2d 1107. See also LaGrenade v. Gordon, 60 N.C. App. 650, 299 S.E.2d 809, 814 (1983). McKenna responded to Levos' question whether he was involved in the Nobles murder by nodding yes and smiling. Appellant's nonverbal response was not ambiguous and was properly admitted into evidence. The homemade knife, wrapped in fabric ligature, which McKenna sought to dispose of on the morning of January 6, 1979, was admitted into evidence. Appellant contends that it was error to permit introduction of the knife or a picture of it because it was prejudicial and irrelevant. We disagree. Appellant has failed to show that the trial court erred in determining the knife's probative value outweighed its prejudicial impact. Lucas v. State, 96 Nev. 428, 431-432, 610 P.2d 727, 730 (1980). The knife, partially wrapped in fabric ligature, was relevant where the cause of Nobles' death was due to ligature strangulation. [6] The evidence also tended to prove appellant's knowledge that a crime had been committed. [7] On redirect examination, respondent asked Rossi questions about Nobles' character which exceeded the scope of the cross-examination. Appellant argues that the trial court denied him a fair trial by refusing his counsel the right to recross-examine with regard thereto. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit recross-examination on Nobles' character which was a collateral [8] matter. See Farmer v. State, 507 P.2d 1303, 1307 (Okl.Crim.App. 1973). Absent a showing of prejudice, we reject appellant's contention that he was thereby denied a fair trial. Six days before trial, appellant filed a motion seeking production of Frank DePalma and five other witnesses. McKenna's trial began on August 16, 1982, but witnesses did not present testimony until August 20, 1982. The trial judge denied McKenna's motion for the production of DePalma on August 24, 1982, citing noncompliance with NRS 174.087. [9] Appellant's offer of proof related that DePalma would testify that Nobles was belligerent and had broken his (DePalma's) jaw in a fight, and that on the night of the murder, McKenna was locked in a cell where a poker game was taking place, not cell 4A2 where Nobles' body was discovered. McKenna argues that because DePalma's testimony was not alibi evidence, the judge erred in not allowing DePalma to testify. [10] If DePalma's testimony was not to establish an alibi, it was cumulative because both Ronnie Lee Jones and Wirsen had testified that Nobles was prone to become involved in fights. However, it appears from the record that the major thrust of the testimony was to place McKenna in another cell after lockdown, and therefore it was alibi evidence subject to NRS 174.087. In either event, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit DePalma to testify. McKenna next contends that if DePalma was an alibi witness, the trial judge erred in not excusing appellant's noncompliance with NRS 174.087. If good cause is shown, a court may exercise its discretion to admit alibi testimony in spite of noncompliance with NRS 174.087. Founts v. State, 87 Nev. 165, 483 P.2d 654 (1971). The proffered testimony in this case appeared for the first time approximately three and one-half years after the murder and following the close of the prosecution's case. McKenna failed to demonstrate, either at trial or on appeal, that good cause existed for the belated production of DePalma. We conclude, therefore, that the exclusion of this testimony was not error. See Reese v. State, 95 Nev. 419, 596 P.2d 212 (1979); Founts v. State, supra .