Opinion ID: 2538439
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Preservation of error on appeal

Text: The central issue raised in this appeal involves the deliberative responsibilities of jurors concerning primary and lesser-included offenses. The district court advised the jury in two separate transition instructions that it must first unanimously acquit Green of the primary aggravated stalking charge before considering the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor stalking. Green failed to object to either instruction on the ground he now asserts as error. [4] He also failed to offer an alternative instruction on the record concerning the issue. Generally, the failure to clearly object on the record to a jury instruction precludes appellate review. [5] However, this court has the discretion to address an error if it was plain and affected the defendant's substantial rights. [6] In conducting plain error review, we must examine whether there was error, whether the error was plain or clear, and whether the error affected the defendant's substantial rights. [7] Additionally, the burden is on the defendant to show actual prejudice or a miscarriage of justice. [8] Here, we conclude that the district court erred in its instructions to the jury regarding its consideration of the lesser-included offense. But we also conclude that the error did not affect Green's substantial rights. We therefore hold that this error did not constitute plain error under NRS 178.602, and we affirm Green's conviction.