Opinion ID: 2388141
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Relevance and the danger of unfair prejudice

Text: Prior bad act evidence is admissible pursuant to the common-plan-or-scheme exception of NRS 48.045(2) when both the prior bad act evidence and the crime charged constitute an `integral part of an overarching plan explicitly conceived and executed by the defendant.' The test is not whether the other offense has certain elements in common with the crime charged, but whether it tends to establish a preconceived plan which resulted in the commission of that crime. Ledbetter v. State, 122 Nev. 252, 260-61, 129 P.3d 671, 677-78 (2006) (quoting Rosky v. State, 121 Nev. 184, 196, 111 P.3d 690, 698 (2005)) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Although the State presented evidence of Linda's financial motive to the jury, the State also chose to present an alternative motivation theory to the jury that Linda killed Palensky for molesting her grandson. At trial, Niqua Walker testified, as a witness for the State, that Linda told her that she killed Palensky after she caught him molesting her grandson. This theory presented by the State is not at all in line with the State's theory of relevancy with respect to evidence of the Mobert conspiracythat the Fieldses took advantage of elderly victims by changing their wills and then hiring an outsider to kill them. Therefore, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the prior uncharged bad acts alleged as the Mobert conspiracy. Also, there is a significant distinction between Mobert and Palensky. Mobert was in his late seventies, in poor health, and needed to have his affairs taken care of by another person at the time of the alleged conspiracy, whereas Palensky was in his sixties, in good health, and still had the strength to work on a ranch. The State portrayed to the jury that both of these victims were the same elderly, frail, and helplesswhen they were allegedly taken advantage of by the Fieldses. We conclude that this portrayal is inaccurate because the victims were not in the same circumstance such that they could be considered similar enough to be part of a preconceived plan as they were not the same age or in the same condition. Mobert died of natural causes in 2007 after there was a civil settlement approved by the court between him and the Fieldsesthere was no ongoing dispute over money at the time of his death. Palensky was murdered, and there was no dispute with the Fieldses over money before his death. The circumstances of the alleged conspiracies are not similar, and the prior conspiracy alleged against Linda involving Mobert is irrelevant because the manner and cause of death of each of the victims are wholly different. We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the Mobert conspiracy because the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and its admission led to serious jury confusion. Evidence of an alleged solicitation to murder Mobert from a police informant is not relevant and goes solely to a showing of bad character. Additionally, since Mobert and Palensky were not similarly situated, the probative value of the evidence of the Mobert conspiracy was substantially lowered, thus increasing the probability of this evidence causing prejudicial harm to Linda. Furthermore, NRS 48.035(1) provides for the exclusion for evidence, even if relevant, if the probative value of that evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury. Here, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in the admission of evidence of the Mobert conspiracy because it was more prejudicial than probative and it led to serious jury confusion since the State also argued Linda's motive was based upon the alleged molestation. The State spent considerable time playing excerpts of the recordings of the conversations between Linda, John, and Wells related to the alleged Mobert conspiracy and presenting Corn's testimony regarding the civil suit between the Fieldses and Mobert. Explaining every aspect of a civil suit within a criminal prosecution is potentially confusing to the jury because the standards and evidence are very different. The alleged conspiracies were not sufficiently similar for the Mobert conspiracy to be admitted under the common-plan-or-scheme exception. Additionally, the State continually referenced the Mobert conspiracy during its closing argument, while also arguing that Linda murdered Palensky for molesting her grandson. Finally, Linda was not charged with conspiracy to commit murder, significantly increasing the possibility of unfair prejudice and jury confusion with the introduction of the Mobert conspiracy evidence. Although we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in admitting this uncharged prior bad act evidence, a new trial is not warranted unless the error was not harmless.