Opinion ID: 1379871
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Disallowed impeachment of witness.

Text: The fifth error assigned by Lord relates to the testimony given by Mr. Young, the service station manager who chased Lord and McDougal after they stole gas from the station. During cross-examination, Mr. Young admitted that he observed the inside and outside of the victim's truck when he impounded it. Later, on re-cross examination, defense counsel attempted to ascertain why Young had not noticed the blood stains in the truck until the morning after he impounded it. Young explained that he did not notice the blood because it was night, the truck was parked in an unlit area, and blood looks like dirt at night. Young said he looked inside the truck, but refused to answer yes to defense counsel's query as to whether he inspected the interior that evening. After this, defense counsel sought to impeach Young with a prior statement Young had made in McDougal's trial that he examined the interior of the truck that evening. Concluding that this was impeachment on a collateral issue, the district court refused to allow the impeachment. Lord argues that it was error for the court to disallow this impeachment. If Mr. Young had denied even looking into the truck that evening, Lord certainly should have been permitted to impeach Young with the prior inconsistent statement. See NRS 50.135. Here, however, we need not reach the issue of whether the district court erred in determining this to be impeachment on a collateral matter, because any error was manifestly harmless. Since Young had admitted to observing the interior of the truck, defense counsel already had ample basis for arguing that Young should have noticed any blood stains the night before. The difference between Mr. Young admitting that he examined versus observed the interior of the truck is marginal at best, especially in light of Young's credible explanation for why he did not notice the blood and in light of the other evidence of guilt.