Court Opinion

ID: 9598674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:10:37.934918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:06.938048
License: Public Domain

Batjer, J.,
concurring,
with whom Gunderson, J., agrees:
I agree that the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial, but only because NRS 48.1251 is unambiguous and needs no interpretation by this court. It clearly prohibits the prosecution from making use of any statements by appellant during plea negotiations or while entering a plea of guilty.
The State’s contention that the scope of the phrase “[ejvidence of a plea of guilty ... or an offer to plead guilty” should be limited to only actual pleas of guilty or offers to plead and not to the statements made while entering those pleas is completely unreasonable, illogical and without merit.
Likewise, the State’s attempt to have this court extend Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971), to control this case is merit-less and warrants no consideration or discussion.

NRS 48.125:
“1. Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn, or of an offer to plead guilty to the crime charged or any other crime is not admissible in a criminal proceeding involving the person who made the plea or offer.
2. Evidence of a plea of nolo contendere or of an offer to plead nolo con-tendere to the crime charged or any other crime is not admissible in a civil or criminal proceeding involving the person who made the plea or offer.”