Court Opinion

ID: 9844349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:01:11.288521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:33.047537
License: Public Domain

Gunderson, J.,
concurring:
Because the State overwhelmingly proved appellant’s guilt by other competent evidence, I can concur in the result. Thus, the errors complained of may be deemed harmless. Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 (1972). However, I must disagree with certain other rationale offered above.
First, concerning NRS 174.235, I cannot agree that because the “statute is only operative in situations where a previous defense motion has been made,” the State may therefore avoid a discovery motion by promising the defendant full discovery, *676and thereafter excuse its breach through a claim of “inadvertence.”
Second, I cannot perceive how there is anything “belated” about appellant’s contention that clothing not connected to the crime, and specifically objected to on that ground, may have confused the jury. By objecting in words directing the trial court’s attention to the clothing’s irrelevance, I suggest appellant’s counsel preserved an adequate objection. See NRS 48.015, 48.025. Here, the question of potential confusion, or lack of it, does not bear on the clothing’s admissibility, but upon its possible prejudicial effect. I have never understood that it is necessary to argue prejudice, in order to preserve an objection.
Third, in all respect, so far as I can see, appellant’s contention concerning NRS 49.295 has not been treated, except through a declaration that the statute does not apply.
Fourth, concerning the warrantless seizure question, appellant’s contention is that the “plain view” doctrine does not apply, because the State anticipated finding the tequila and clothing, and therefore their discovery and seizure were not inadvertent. Of course, under Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), inadvertence is an essential element to application of the “plain view” doctrine. See Barnato v. State, 88 Nev. 508, 501 P.2d 643 (1972). Again, it does not appear to me that the issue raised is answered.