Opinion ID: 2824353
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility and relevancy

Text: The admissibility of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts to establish intent and an absence of mistake or accident is well established, particularly in child abuse cases, United States v. Harris, 661 F.2d 138, 142 (10th Cir. 1981), where the State must often prove its case, SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 16 (0) I947A .4040 if at all, with circumstantial evidence amidst a background of a pattern of abuse, United States v. Merri weather, 22 M.J. 657, 663 (A.C.M.R. 1986) (Naughton, J., concurring). See Bludsworth v. State, 98 Nev. 289, 291, 646 P.2d 558, 559 (1982) (evidence of prior injuries is admissible as independent, relevant circumstantial evidence tending to show that the child was intentionally, rather than accidently, injured on the day in question); Ashford v. State, 603 P.2d 1162, 1164 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979) (evidence of past injuries [is] admissible to counter any claim that the latest injury happened through accident or simple negligence. The pattern of abuse is relevant to show the intent of the act.); State v. Widdison, 4 P.3d 100, 108 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (Evidence of prior child abuse, both against the victim and other children, is admissible to show identity, intent, or lack of accident or mistake.); see also State v. Taylor, 701 A.2d 389, 395-96 (Md. 1997) (gathering cases). Here, the abuse charges and the death charges were connected together because evidence from these charges demonstrated a pattern of abuse and neglect that would have been relevant and admissible in separate trials for each of the charges. Accordingly, we conclude that the joinder of these charges was permissible under NRS 173.115.