Opinion ID: 2633236
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Counsel's failure to challenge the grand jury indictment

Text: Our review of the record reveals that any challenges to the sufficiency, propriety, or admissibility of the evidence presented to the grand jury would not have been successful. It is well established in Nevada that, despite the presentation of improper or inadmissible evidence to a grand jury, an indictment will be sustained if there is the slightest sufficient legal evidence and best in degree appearing in the record. [15] Here, the combined testimony of the victims alone was sufficient to support the grand jury's indictment. Thus, even assuming that improper testimony by Detective Stahl was presented to the grand jury, Avery failed to establish either that his counsel was deficient or that he was prejudiced by counsel's alleged deficient performance, i.e., that, but for counsel's failure to object to the grand jury indictment on these grounds, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. [16] The district court did not err in rejecting the claims relating to counsel's failure to challenge the indictment.