defendant guilty absent error in Nevada

2024See Nay, 123 Nev. at 333-34 , 167 P.3d at 435 (recognizing that harmless-error review applies to jury instruction errors). "[A]n error is harmless when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error." Id. at 334, 167 P.3d at 435 (quoting Wegner v. State, 116 Nev, 1149, 1155, 14 P.3d 25, 30 (2000), overruled on other grounds by Rosas v. State, 122 Nev. 1258 , 1267- 68, 147 P.3d 1101, 1108 (2006) (further internal quotation marks omitted)).

2024See Nay, 123 Nev. at 333-34 , 167 P.3d at 435 (recognizing that harmless-error review applies to jury instruction errors). "[A]n error is harmless when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error." Id. at 334, 167 P.3d at 435 (quoting Wegner v. State, 116 Nev, 1149, 1155, 14 P.3d 25, 30 (2000), overruled on other grounds by Rosas v. State, 122 Nev. 1258 , 1267- 68, 147 P.3d 1101, 1108 (2006) (further internal quotation marks omitted)).

2025See Allred v. State, 120 Nev. 410, 415 , 92 P.3d 1246, 1250 (2004) ("An error is harmless when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error." (internal quotation marks ornitted)).

2025See Allred v. State, 120 Nev. 410, 415 , 92 P.3d 1246, 1250 (2004) ("An error is harmless when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error." (internal quotation marks ornitted)).

2024See Nay, 123 Nev. at 333-34 , 167 P.3d at 435 (recognizing that harmless-error review applies to jury instruction errors). "[A]n error is harmless when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error." Id. at 334, 167 P.3d at 435 (quoting Wegner v. State, 116 Nev, 1149, 1155, 14 P.3d 25, 30 (2000), overruled on other grounds by Rosas v. State, 122 Nev. 1258 , 1267- 68, 147 P.3d 1101, 1108 (2006) (further internal quotation marks omitted)).

2020The improper exclusion of a jury instruction is harmless error "when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error." Wegner v. State, 116 Nev. 1149, 1155-56 , 14 P.3d 25, 30 (2000), overruled on other grounds by Rosas v. State, 122 Nev, 1258, 147 P.3d 1101 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2008The test under Chapman for constitutional trial error is “whether it is ‘clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.’ ” Tavares, 117 Nev. at 732 n.14, 30 P.3d at 1132 n.14 (quoting Neder, 527 U.S. at 18 ).

2002This instruction, without more, would warrant a finding of plain reversible error, because it would allow for a conviction based on mere aiding and abetting, or aiding and abetting a battery when [Sharma] lacked the intent to kill [Ranadey] when [he] acted." [27] Collman v. State, 116 Nev. 687 , 722-23, 7 P.3d 426, 449 (2000) (in assessing harmless error, the court must ask: "`[i]s it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?'" (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999))). [28] Wegn

2024See Nay, 123 Nev. at 333-34 , 167 P.3d at 435 (recognizing that harmless-error review applies to jury instruction errors). "[A]n error is harmless when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error." Id. at 334, 167 P.3d at 435 (quoting Wegner v. State, 116 Nev, 1149, 1155, 14 P.3d 25, 30 (2000), overruled on other grounds by Rosas v. State, 122 Nev. 1258 , 1267- 68, 147 P.3d 1101, 1108 (2006) (further internal quotation marks omitted)).

2024See Nay, 123 Nev. at 333-34 , 167 P.3d at 435 (recognizing that harmless-error review applies to jury instruction errors). "[A]n error is harmless when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error." Id. at 334, 167 P.3d at 435 (quoting Wegner v. State, 116 Nev, 1149, 1155, 14 P.3d 25, 30 (2000), overruled on other grounds by Rosas v. State, 122 Nev. 1258 , 1267- 68, 147 P.3d 1101, 1108 (2006) (further internal quotation marks omitted)).

2024See Nay, 123 Nev. at 333-34 , 167 P.3d at 435 (recognizing that harmless-error review applies to jury instruction errors). "[A]n error is harmless when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error." Id. at 334, 167 P.3d at 435 (quoting Wegner v. State, 116 Nev, 1149, 1155, 14 P.3d 25, 30 (2000), overruled on other grounds by Rosas v. State, 122 Nev. 1258 , 1267- 68, 147 P.3d 1101, 1108 (2006) (further internal quotation marks omitted)).

2020Moreover, "[t]he district court has broad discretion to settle jury instructions," Crawford v. State, 121 Nev. 744, 748 , 121 P.3d 582, 585 (2005), and any error in giving Jury Instruction No. 50 would have been harmless, see Rose v. State, 127 Nev. 494, 500 , 255 P.3d 291, 295 (2011) ("An erroneous instruction on the elements of an offense is harmless when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2020Moreover, "[t]he district court has broad discretion to settle jury instructions," Crawford v. State, 121 Nev. 744, 748 , 121 P.3d 582, 585 (2005), and any error in giving Jury Instruction No. 50 would have been harmless, see Rose v. State, 127 Nev. 494, 500 , 255 P.3d 291, 295 (2011) ("An erroneous instruction on the elements of an offense is harmless when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2020Moreover, "[t]he district court has broad discretion to settle jury instructions," Crawford v. State, 121 Nev. 744, 748 , 121 P.3d 582, 585 (2005), and any error in giving Jury Instruction No. 50 would have been harmless, see Rose v. State, 127 Nev. 494, 500 , 255 P.3d 291, 295 (2011) ("An erroneous instruction on the elements of an offense is harmless when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2020Moreover, "[t]he district court has broad discretion to settle jury instructions," Crawford v. State, 121 Nev. 744, 748 , 121 P.3d 582, 585 (2005), and any error in giving Jury Instruction No. 50 would have been harmless, see Rose v. State, 127 Nev. 494, 500 , 255 P.3d 291, 295 (2011) ("An erroneous instruction on the elements of an offense is harmless when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2017"An instruction, to be applicable, must have some basis in the evidence." State v. Moore, 48 Nev. 405, 414 , 233 P. 523, 525-26 (1925); see Zahavi, 131 Nev., Adv.

2017"An instruction, to be applicable, must have some basis in the evidence." State v. Moore, 48 Nev. 405, 414 , 233 P. 523, 525-26 (1925); see Zahavi, 131 Nev., Adv.

2002This instruction, without more, would warrant a finding of plain reversible error, because it would allow for a conviction based on mere aiding and abetting, or aiding and abetting a battery when [Sharma] lacked the intent to kill [Ranadey] when [he] acted." [27] Collman v. State, 116 Nev. 687 , 722-23, 7 P.3d 426, 449 (2000) (in assessing harmless error, the court must ask: "`[i]s it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?'" (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999))). [28] Wegn

2002This instruction, without more, would warrant a finding of plain reversible error, because it would allow for a conviction based on mere aiding and abetting, or aiding and abetting a battery when [Sharma] lacked the intent to kill [Ranadey] when [he] acted." [27] Collman v. State, 116 Nev. 687 , 722-23, 7 P.3d 426, 449 (2000) (in assessing harmless error, the court must ask: "`[i]s it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?'" (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999))). [28] Wegn

2002This instruction, without more, would warrant a finding of plain reversible error, because it would allow for a conviction based on mere aiding and abetting, or aiding and abetting a battery when [Sharma] lacked the intent to kill [Ranadey] when [he] acted." [27] Collman v. State, 116 Nev. 687 , 722-23, 7 P.3d 426, 449 (2000) (in assessing harmless error, the court must ask: "`[i]s it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?'" (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999))). [28] Wegn

2002This instruction, without more, would warrant a finding of plain reversible error, because it would allow for a conviction based on mere aiding and abetting, or aiding and abetting a battery when [Sharma] lacked the intent to kill [Ranadey] when [he] acted." [27] Collman v. State, 116 Nev. 687 , 722-23, 7 P.3d 426, 449 (2000) (in assessing harmless error, the court must ask: "`[i]s it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?'" (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999))). [28] Wegn

2002This instruction, without more, would warrant a finding of plain reversible error, because it would allow for a conviction based on mere aiding and abetting, or aiding and abetting a battery when [Sharma] lacked the intent to kill [Ranadey] when [he] acted." [27] Collman v. State, 116 Nev. 687 , 722-23, 7 P.3d 426, 449 (2000) (in assessing harmless error, the court must ask: "`[i]s it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?'" (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999))). [28] Wegn

2002This instruction, without more, would warrant a finding of plain reversible error, because it would allow for a conviction based on mere aiding and abetting, or aiding and abetting a battery when [Sharma] lacked the intent to kill [Ranadey] when [he] acted." [27] Collman v. State, 116 Nev. 687 , 722-23, 7 P.3d 426, 449 (2000) (in assessing harmless error, the court must ask: "`[i]s it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?'" (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999))). [28] Wegn

2002This instruction, without more, would warrant a finding of plain reversible error, because it would allow for a conviction based on mere aiding and abetting, or aiding and abetting a battery when [Sharma] lacked the intent to kill [Ranadey] when [he] acted." [27] Collman v. State, 116 Nev. 687 , 722-23, 7 P.3d 426, 449 (2000) (in assessing harmless error, the court must ask: "`[i]s it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?'" (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999))). [28] Wegn

2000Moreover, Neder concluded that jury instruction errors are subject to a harmless-error analysis if they do not involve the type of jury instruction *1156 error which “vitiates all the jury’s findings” and produces “consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate.’ ’ Id. at 10-11 (citing Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 281-82 (1993)).