Opinion ID: 2630917
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The incomplete instruction affected Ramirez's substantial rights

Text: Even though the jury was not instructed on the necessary elements for the crime of second-degree felony murder, because Ramirez did not object to the incomplete and inaccurate instruction at trial, reversal is only required if the error is plain from a review of the record and affected Ramirez's substantial rights. See Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1190, 196 P.3d 465, 477 (2008); NRS 178.602; see also NRS 177.255. Under th[is] standard, an error that is plain from a review of the record does not require reversal unless the defendant demonstrates that the error affected his or her substantial rights, by causing actual prejudice or a miscarriage of justice. Valdez, 124 Nev. at 1190, 196 P.3d at 477 (internal quotations omitted). While the failure to provide the specific elements of second-degree felony murder under Morris and Labastida, standing alone, might not amount to plain error, we conclude that Ramirez's substantial rights were affected by the improper instruction because (1) the State failed to specify the felony under which it sought a second-degree felony-murder conviction and, thus, Ramirez could have been convicted of second-degree felony murder under a potentially invalid predicate offense; and (2) there was conflicting evidence as to whether Ramirez or Aponte inflicted Trinity's mortal wounds.