Opinion ID: 1152979
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Whether the defendant's conviction must be reversed because of the cumulative effect of errors.

Text: Lisle argues that numerous errors in this case violate his rights and damage the integrity of the justice system, thereby mandating reversal of his conviction. If the cumulative effect of errors committed at trial denies the appellant his right to a fair trial, this court will reverse the conviction. Relevant factors to consider in deciding whether error is harmless or prejudicial include whether the issue of innocence or guilt is close, the quantity and character of the error, and the gravity of the crime charged. ... Evidence against the defendant must be substantial enough to convict him in an otherwise fair trial, and it must be said without reservation that the verdict would have been the same in the absence of error. Homick v. State, 112 Nev. 304, 316, 913 P.2d 1280, 1288 (1996) (citing Big Pond v. State, 101 Nev. 1, 3, 692 P.2d 1288, 1289 (1985)). Upon a review of the record, we conclude that the verdict would have been the same in the absence of error. Finally, NRS 177.055(2) compels this court to address whether the death sentence was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any arbitrary factor. We conclude that the record contains sufficient evidence upon which the jury could have found that the aggravating circumstance outweighed any mitigating circumstances, and thus the death sentence was not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any arbitrary factor.