Opinion ID: 1426947
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Mentioning the possibility of a directed verdict.

Text: In her opening statement, Leonard's counsel, Saunders, told the jury that the prosecution would present its case first and if it failed to prove its case, Leonard doesn't have to do anything. We don't have to do anything, Mr. Wessel and I. We can ask the judge to find a verdict. . . . If that is not the case, and there is some situation where we feel that we need to present the other side, we need to present to you why we feel that Mr. Leonard took the actions that he took, then we will do that. Leonard says that counsel's reference to a directed verdict misstated the law and prejudiced him because once the district court did not acquit him at the end of the state's case in chief, the jury was led to believe that the court considered the evidence sufficient for conviction. We agree that counsel's statement was inaccurate. If the trial court deems the evidence insufficient, it may advise the jury to acquit, but the jury is not bound by such advice. NRS 175.381(1); State v. Wilson, 104 Nev. 405, 408, 760 P.2d 129, 131 (1988). But we conclude that the statement had little if any prejudicial effect. In context, counsel was telling the jury that Leonard had no duty to put on evidence and that the burden of proof lay entirely with the state. We conclude that no reasonable juror would have relied on counsel's passing remark to conclude that the state had prevailed if the trial proceeded to presentation of evidence by Leonard.