Opinion ID: 1281427
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Admitting Lockett's Preliminary Hearing Testimony

Text: Hardison suggests the trial court erred in admitting Lockett's preliminary hearing testimony and Lockett's statement to the police. We disagree. NRS 51.035 in pertinent part provides: Hearsay means a statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless: ... (2) The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is: (a) Inconsistent with his testimony; Both Lockett's statement to police and his preliminary hearing testimony unequivocally indicated that Lockett was an eyewitness to the murder and that he identified Hardison as the killer. However, at trial, Lockett testified that he was not present at the time of the murder and did not know who killed Pete Johnson. Lockett's trial testimony was in direct conflict with the two previous statements. Accordingly, the statements were admissible as evidence pursuant to NRS 51.035(2)(a). See, e.g., Levi v. State, 95 Nev. 746, 749, 602 P.2d 189, 190 (1979) (where testimony of two witnesses at the preliminary hearing was inconsistent with their testimony at trial, preliminary hearing testimony was admissible for all purposes pursuant to NRS 51.035).