Opinion ID: 1119095
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the district court erred in denying Simmons' motion for a new trial.

Text: Finally, Simmons contends that the State illegally suppressed evidence of the interview with the victim's neighbor, Bradley, on the morning of the murder. See Wallace v. State, 88 Nev. 549, 550, 501 P.2d 1036, 1037 (1972) (State may not withhold evidence that is relevant to the charge and prima facie favorable to the accused). Simmons asserts that this evidence would have been reasonably likely to have affected the outcome of the trial. Simmons observes that when Bradley told investigators that he had heard no shots fired the night of the incident, the investigators more vigorously attempted to find a rock, pipe, or other blunt instrument that may have been used to kill Jason. Simmons surmises that this evidence may have had a strong impact on the jury since, during deliberations, the jury directed a question to the judge concerning whether anyone had heard the dogs barking on the night of Jason's murder. Noting that Jason's father, an experienced veteran, did not smell gun powder at the time of the shooting and that there was no blood splattering which normally occurs with shotgun blasts, Simmons concludes that the jury may have rejected the State's theory that Jason was shot in the Kopack's residence. The State maintains that Bradley's statement was immaterial because evidence was presented to the jury that the neighbors heard nothing unusual that night. Additionally, the State notes that the physical evidence overwhelmingly indicated that Jason was shot at his residence. There were no blood trails from the large gunshot wound, and when found, the victim was shoeless and wrapped in a blue blanket. Blue fibers matching the blanket were found on the shotgun wadding retrieved from Jason's body, and the lividity in Jason's feet was consistent with death occurring where the body was discovered. Moreover, the State points to the testimony of Simmons' friends relating Simmons' communications regarding both his murderous plan and the act of killing Jason at his residence. And finally, the State disclaims responsibility for suppressing the evidence where the defendant had access to the same information and, with the exercise of diligence, could have interviewed Bradley before trial. The State emphasizes that the district court properly found that its authorization of investigative funds in the amount of $14,000 was ample for the defense to persevere in its efforts to interview Bradley beyond the two unsuccessful attempts made prior to or during trial. We conclude that the district court was correct in determining that evidence of Bradley's statements to police claiming to have heard nothing unusual during the period including the time frame of the murder is not sufficient to merit a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The relevance of such testimony applies only to the question of whether or not Jason was actually killed at his residence. As emphasized by the State, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Jason was shot at his home. Therefore, we need only note that Bradley's statement, even if deemed to be properly categorized as newly discovered evidence, would not satisfy the requirement that the evidence be of such quality that, when considered by the jury, would probably result in a different outcome upon retrial. See Sanborn v. State, 107 Nev. 399, 406, 812 P.2d 1279, 1284-85 (1991).