Opinion ID: 2570523
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The witness's alleged lack of remorse over the victim's death

Text: The State presented evidence of Collman's lack of remorse through testimony that Collman propositioned Stach for sexual relations around the time of Damian's funeral. Stach testified that she had refused Collman's advances because she was too emotionally distraught over Damian's death. In response, the defense wanted to present evidence of Stach's lack of remorse through her alleged sexual conduct shortly after Damian's death. Specifically, the defense wanted to present evidence that Stach had allegedly propositioned Kim Colon for sex and had allegedly had a sexual affair with Ana Flores. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether these prior acts were admissible. At the evidentiary hearing, Collman's parents each testified as to an alleged incident occurring between Flores and Stach on January 21, 1996. Further, Kim Colon testified that while Stach was temporarily living with her in February 1996, Stach propositioned her. The district court denied Collman's motion, concluding that the information was irrelevant, prejudicial, and incredible. Collman argues that the district court abused its discretion by excluding this evidence. See Daly, 99 Nev. at 567, 665 P.2d at 801 (holding that the trial court has the discretion to admit or exclude evidence). We conclude that evidence regarding Stach's lack of remorse was relevant to Collman's defense that Stach was the real killer. Because the district court admitted evidence that Collman lacked remorse over Damian's death, Stach's lack of remorse was equally relevant. Therefore, the district court incorrectly concluded that the evidence was irrelevant. Nevertheless, our review of the record reveals that Collman's allegation of Stach's sexual conduct was not proven by even a preponderance of the evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence. The record reflects that the testimony of Collman's parents was inconsistent and implausible and that Kim Colon had animosity toward Stach. Kim Colon further admitted that she had previously lied to a police officer who interviewed her and that she would lie to protect herself. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding such evidence.
Collman claims that evidence that he had been transferred at work was improperly admitted as character evidence. To reiterate, in order to admit evidence of a person's other crimes, wrongs, or acts, the district court must determine that the other act is relevant for an admissible purpose, that it was proven by clear and convincing evidence, and that the probative value of the act is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. NRS 48.045(2); Tinch, 113 Nev. at 1176, 946 P.2d at 1064-65. This court will not overturn a district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence absent an abuse of discretion. Daly, 99 Nev. at 567, 665 P.2d at 801. The State presented testimony that in December 1995, Collman felt stress from working in the lockdown unit of the prison, Unit 2, a difficult and dangerous section also known as the prison within the prison. Collman mentioned to a coworker that he also felt stress at home because Damian was getting into things, was out of control, and did not listen to Collman. For his benefit, Collman transferred to a less stressful unit for two weeks before returning to his original post in Unit 2. Prior to admitting this testimony, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and determined that the temporary transfer was relevant to show that Collman was under stress shortly before Damian's death. The court also determined that the probative value of the evidence of the nondisciplinary transfer was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. We conclude that based on the district court's reasoning and the record as a whole, the court did not abuse its discretion.
Collman argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial based on references made to his being in jail. Reference to a defendant's prior criminal history may be reversible error. See Witherow v. State, 104 Nev. 721, 724, 765 P.2d 1153, 1155 (1988). The test for determining if such a reference occurred is whether the jury could reasonably infer from the evidence presented that the defendant had engaged in prior criminal activity. Id. During the prosecutor's direct examination of Collman's friend, Robert Marcum, the following exchange took place. Q. Now, do you recalldo you remember when that happened when you went to pick up this mattress? A. Hum, it was actually the sameI guess he was in jail down in Las Vegas. And it was supposedly he was getting out of jail that day. Q..... Do you remember how long after [Damian's death] that could have happened? A. Not exactly. That's the best way I can. Additionally, during defense counsel's cross-examination of another of Collman's friends, Michael Palombo, Palombo also mistakenly and briefly revealed that Collman was in jail. Shortly thereafter, outside the jury's presence, Marcum testified that although the prosecutor had specifically instructed him not to, he mistakenly revealed that Collman was in a Las Vegas jail in approximately February 1996. (The record does not divulge why Collman was in jail.) Marcum stated, It just came out. I justyou know, I wasn't thinking about it. At the conclusion of this hearing, Collman moved for a mistrial. The district court denied the motion, stating that the slips were inadvertent, Marcum and Palombo did not disclose why Collman was in jail, and the jury could easily think that Collman was in jail due to the present matter. After reviewing the references made and the hearing afterward, we conclude that the remarks improperly referred to Collman's prior criminal history but were harmless. Thus, the district court did not err in denying the motion for a mistrial. Palombo's and Marcum's statements that Collman was in jail were not made or elicited by the prosecutor; they were brief, inadvertent comments made by inexperienced witnesses in the midst of a long and complicated trial. Additionally, Marcum stated that he was in jail and did not use Collman's name. While the jury may have realized that he was Collman, that fact was not emphasized. Moreover, in the penalty phase, the jury found as a mitigating factor Collman's lack of a criminal history. We are convinced, therefore, that Collman was not prejudiced by the witnesses' remarks.
Richard Stach testified as to Damian's demeanor prior to Collman's involvement in Damian's life. During this testimony, the State sought admission of a videotape depicting Damian as a happy baby with no bruises. The district court conducted a hearing and viewed the videotape. The court concluded that because the videotape's quality was deficient, it could not be used to demonstrate Damian's lack of bruises. However, the court determined that the probative value of establishing Damian's demeanor was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or emotional appeal to the jury. Accordingly, over Collman's objection, the court admitted the videotape for that limited purpose. Collman contends that the videotape had no probative value and only served to appeal to the jurors' emotions. The trial court has the discretion to admit or exclude photographs of a victim, and this court will not overturn such a ruling absent an abuse of that discretion. Browne v. State, 113 Nev. 305, 314, 933 P.2d 187, 192 (1997). The court must determine whether the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Id. at 313 n. 1, 933 P.2d at 192 n. 1. Here, the district court reviewed the videotape and determined that it was relevant and probative. We conclude that Collman failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion.
Collman contends that the district court erroneously admitted a report made by the state's forensic expert. Dr. Raymond D. Rawson, the state's expert witness, prepared a forensic report, Exhibit 96, concluding that Damian suffered nine separate bite marks and with a high degree of confidence that Collman was the biter. Dr. Rawson testified to this opinion at trial. The defense utilized the report to cross-examine Dr. Rawson and even showed a photograph in the report to the jury. Based on this use of the report by Collman, the State asked that the whole report be admitted. The defense objected, arguing that Dr. Rawson had not testified to all portions of the report. Specifically, Dr. Rawson's report referred to nine bite marks on Damian's body, while Dr. Rawson's testimony focused on only three of the most severe and obvious bites. The district court admitted the report into evidence. Collman argues that the district court erroneously admitted the entire report. We conclude that this argument has no merit pursuant to NRS 47.120(1), which provides: When any part of a writing or recorded statement is introduced by a party, he may be required at that time to introduce any other part of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other relevant parts. See also Domingues v. State, 112 Nev. 683, 693-94, 917 P.2d 1364, 1372 (1996). Here, Collman in effect introduced portions of the report during cross-examination of Dr. Rawson. Under NRS 47.120(1), the State was permitted to introduce any other relevant parts. The entire report was relevant to the case because evidence of bite marks tended to prove that Damian was an abused child. Further, Dr. Rawson's testimony referred to his overall conclusion that nine bite marks were present and that Collman caused them all; therefore, contrary to Collman's contention, the entire report contained information to which Dr. Rawson testified. We conclude that the district court did not err in admitting the report.
The State presented evidence that Damian had several bite marks on his body. While one mark on his forearm was indisputably a bite mark, the parties vigorously litigated whether the other marks were bites, Dr. Norman Sperber was one of three defense experts in forensic dentistry. All three experts agreed that Damian had one bite mark on his arm, but ruled out the other marks as bites. Outside the presence of the jury, Dr. Sperber testified that he became involved with this case while at a conference attended by law enforcement agents and other forensic dentists. One of the police officers assigned to the instant case showed Dr. Sperber Damian's photographs and a report written by the state's forensic dentist expert. Dr. Sperber showed the photographs and/or portions of the report to his colleagues at the conference. Those colleagues apparently opined based solely on the photographs that Damian possessed only one bite mark on his forearm. Collman moved the district court to permit Dr. Sperber to testify to his colleagues' statements. The district court denied the motion because the statements were not reliable. Arguing that the district court erred by excluding the statements, Collman cites NRS 51.075(1) and Emmons v. State, 107 Nev. 53, 807 P.2d 718 (1991). NRS 51.075(1) provides: A statement is not excluded by the hearsay rule if its nature and the special circumstances under which it was made offer assurances of accuracy not likely to be enhanced by calling the declarant as a witness, even though he is available. In Emmons, the district court permitted the testifying medical examiner to discuss the concurring opinion of her colleague, a radiologist, regarding certain medical evidence. Additionally, the court admitted a letter written by the radiologist outlining his opinion. Emmons, 107 Nev. at 57, 807 P.2d at 720. This court concluded that the trial court did not err by admitting the testimony and letter pursuant to NRS 51.075 because the radiologist was a disinterested witness with no motive to lie. Id. at 57, 807 P.2d at 721. Collman argues that this case is like Emmons because the doctors at the conference were disinterested witnesses with no motive to lie; therefore, assurances of accuracy exist. We conclude that while Dr. Sperber's colleagues may have been disinterested with no motive to lie, the requisite assurances of accuracy are not as strong as those in Emmons. Specifically, the radiologist in Emmons wrote a letter discussing the medical evidence and why he agreed with the medical examiner. It also appears that the two doctors consulted extensively. By contrast, in the present case, Dr. Sperber only showed his colleagues photographs of Damian's body. They did not possess molds of Collman's, Stach's, and Damian's teeth, they did not read reports by the state's expert, and they did not view Damian's body. Further, each colleague apparently looked over the photographs for only a few minutes each in between seminars at the conference. Accordingly, because calling those colleagues to the stand was the only way to test the accuracy of their hearsay statements, we conclude that Dr. Sperber's proposed testimony of his colleagues' opinions does not fall within the exception in NRS 51.075. [4] Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in excluding that testimony.
Rick Colon testified for the defense that Stach proudly displayed bruises she allegedly inflicted on Damian. He testified that due to Stach's behavior, he was concerned for Damian's welfare. On cross-examination, the State asked whether he had called the authorities to report Stach as a child abuser. The defense objected, arguing that failure to call the authorities is not proper impeachment. The district court overruled the objection, permitting Rick Colon to answer. Rick Colon testified that he did not call the authorities to report Stach and that he also refused to speak with the police or prosecutors about this case because he preferred to keep them in the dark. Collman argues that the State improperly impeached Rick Colon. Collman cites only to two New York cases which hold that a prosecutor may not impeach an alibi witness based on the witness's failure to inform the police of the alibi and that no inference may be drawn from such failure. See People v. Allen, 74 A.D.2d 640, 425 N.Y.S.2d 144, 148 (N.Y.App.Div.1980), overruled by People v. Knight, 173 A.D.2d 736, 570 N.Y.S.2d 617 (N.Y.App.Div.1991); People v. Hamlin, 58 A.D.2d 631, 395 N.Y.S.2d 679, 681 (N.Y.App.Div.1977). These cases are inapplicable in the present matter. Impeachment consists of attacking a witness's credibility, which depends on that witness's willingness and ability to tell the truth. 1 John William Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 33 (4th ed.1992). One may be impeached with respect to such matters as perception, memory, communication, sincerity, or bias. Id. Here, the State attempted to prove that Stach was not Damian's abuser. In asking whether Rick Colon called the authorities, the State impeached the sincerity of his alleged concern for Damian. Further, the fact that Rick Colon preferred not to talk to police or prosecutors suggested a bias for the defense. Accordingly, we conclude that the State properly impeached Rick Colon.
During the settling of the jury instructions, Collman requested an instruction on child abuse causing substantial bodily harm, a felony, but the district court refused to give the instruction. Collman contends that the court erred. In Moore v. State, 105 Nev. 378, 383, 776 P.2d 1235, 1239 (1989), this court held that the trial court must give a defendant's proffered jury instruction on a lesser related offense if three conditions are satisfied: (1) the lesser offense is closely related to the offense charged; (2) defendant's theory of defense is consistent with a conviction for the related offense; and (3) evidence of the lesser offense exists. [5] Here, child abuse causing substantial bodily harm is closely related to first-degree murder from child abuse and is supported by evidence presented by the State. We conclude, however, that the second condition is not satisfied. In Moore v. State, 109 Nev. 445, 446-47, 851 P.2d 1062, 1063 (1993), the jury was instructed on a lesser related offense at the state's request and convicted the defendant of the lesser related offense. This court reversed the conviction because the lesser related offense was inconsistent with the defendant's theory of defense, a complete denial of culpability. This court concluded that the defendant must admit to some conduct which constitutes the lesser crime before the jury may be instructed on the lesser related offense. Id. at 447, 851 P.2d at 1063; see Johnson v. State, 111 Nev. 1210, 1213-14, 902 P.2d 48, 50 (1995). Collman contends that admitting to some conduct which constitutes the lesser crime violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Accordingly, he argues that he should not have to admit to any action which caused Damian substantial bodily harm to get the lesser related offense instruction. This argument clearly lacks merit. Collman was not compelled to admit to criminal conduct. He was merely required to demonstrate that his theory of defense was consistent with his proposed instruction. He had no right to an instruction which was inconsistent with his complete denial of culpability. Again, all of Collman's defense theories consisted of denying any wrongful action on his part. He asserted that Damian fell down the stairs, choked on bubble gum, or died from Stach's abuse. None of these defenses are consistent with Collman's claim of inflicting substantial bodily harm upon Damian on January 19, 1996. The district court therefore did not err by refusing to give the requested instruction.
Collman contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We reject this contention. In reviewing the evidence supporting a jury's verdict, this court must determine whether the jury, acting reasonably, could have been convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by the competent evidence. Wilkins v. State, 96 Nev. 367, 374, 609 P.2d 309, 313 (1980). This court will not disturb a jury's verdict on appeal where there is substantial evidence to support it. Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 624 P.2d 20 (1981). The jury determines what weight and credibility to give conflicting testimony. Id. Circumstantial evidence alone may support a judgment of conviction. Deveroux v. State, 96 Nev. 388, 391, 610 P.2d 722, 724 (1980). Collman asserts that Stach lied on the stand and that the evidence was just as strong that Stach caused the fatal injuries, not he, or that Damian had died as a result of a fall down the stairs. Collman seeks to reargue the credibility of the witnesses, particularly Stach's. The jury, however, already determined credibility in the state's favor. Also, sufficient evidence existed to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Damian's death was not caused by an accidental fall.
During the guilt phase, the jury received instruction number 11, which read: There are certain kinds of murder which carry with them conclusive evidence of malice aforethought. One of these classes of murder is murder committed by means of child abuse. Therefore, a killing which is committed by child abuse is deemed to be murder of the first degree, whether the killing was intentional or unintentional. (Emphasis added.) Collman did not challenge this instruction below or on appeal, but after reviewing the record, we ordered the parties to provide supplemental briefs addressing whether this instruction correctly provided that child abuse constituted conclusive evidence of malice when murder is charged pursuant to NRS 200.030(1)(a). Having considered the supplemental briefs of the parties and of amici curiae, we conclude that instruction number 11 was erroneous, but we conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the other proper instructions provided to the jury, the jury's verdicts as a whole, and the evidence in this case. [6]