harmless error in Nevada

2022See Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1192 , 196 P.3d 465, 478-79 (2008) ("[W]e apply the harmless-error analysis for prosecutorial misconduct of a nonconstitutional dimension.

2022See Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1192 , 196 P.3d 465, 478-79 (2008) ("[W]e apply the harmless-error analysis for prosecutorial misconduct of a nonconstitutional dimension.

2018"This court evaluates appellate claims concerning jury instructions using a harmless error standard of review." Barnier v. State, 119 Nev. 129 , 132, 67 P.3d 320 , 322 (2003).

2018"This court evaluates appellate claims concerning jury instructions using a harmless error standard of review." Barnier v. State, 119 Nev. 129 , 132, 67 P.3d 320 , 322 (2003).

2016See Valdez, 124 Nev. at 1188-89 , 196 P.3d at 476 (setting forth the harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional error); see also McKee, 112 Nev. at 648 , 917 P.2d at 944 (reviewing a prosecutor's failure to comply with an open-file policy for nonconstitutional harmless error where the appellant properly preserved the issue for appellate review).

2016See Valdez, 124 Nev. at 1188-89 , 196 P.3d at 476 (setting forth the harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional error); see also McKee, 112 Nev. at 648 , 917 P.2d at 944 (reviewing a prosecutor's failure to comply with an open-file policy for nonconstitutional harmless error where the appellant properly preserved the issue for appellate review).

2010Normally, when there is a Crawford violation, we will review the prejudicial effects of the violation under a harmless-error analysis, which does not require reversal if the State can “ ‘show “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” ’ ”Medina, 122 Nev. at 355 , 143 P.3d at 476-77 (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 (1993) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967))); see also Ennis v. State, 122 Nev. 694, 702 , 137 P.3d 1095, 1101 (2006).

1999Leavitt, L, dissenting: I agree with the majority that the alleged error concerning violation of the attorney-client privilege is susceptible to a harmless error analysis under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967).

2025Cf. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA ea 17 10) 1947A Tabish v. State, 119 Nev. 293, 311 , 72 P.3d 584, 595 (2003) ("Harmless error analysis applies to hearsay errors.").

2025Cf. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA ea 17 10) 1947A Tabish v. State, 119 Nev. 293, 311 , 72 P.3d 584, 595 (2003) ("Harmless error analysis applies to hearsay errors.").

2020See Rosky, 121 Nev. at 198, 111 P.3d at 699 ("Errors in the admission of evidence under NRS 48.045(2) are subject to a harmless error review.").

2020See Rosky, 121 Nev. at 198, 111 P.3d at 699 ("Errors in the admission of evidence under NRS 48.045(2) are subject to a harmless error review.").

2013See Fields v. State, 125 Nev. 776, 784 , 220 P.3d 724, 729 (2009) (reviewing erroneous admission of evidence for harmless error).

2013See Fields v. State, 125 Nev. 776, 784 , 220 P.3d 724, 729 (2009) (reviewing erroneous admission of evidence for harmless error).

2010Normally, when there is a Crawford violation, we will review the prejudicial effects of the violation under a harmless-error analysis, which does not require reversal if the State can “ ‘show “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” ’ ”Medina, 122 Nev. at 355 , 143 P.3d at 476-77 (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 (1993) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967))); see also Ennis v. State, 122 Nev. 694, 702 , 137 P.3d 1095, 1101 (2006).

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)).

2015See Tavares, 117 Nev. at 732 , 30 P.3d at 1132 (describing the harmless-error test for nonconstitutional error).

2015See Tavares, 117 Nev. at 732 , 30 P.3d at 1132 (describing the harmless-error test for nonconstitutional error).

2020The district court's errors pertaining to jury instructions will be harmless only if "we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury's verdict was not attributable to the error and that the error was harmless under the facts and circumstances of this case." Crawford, 121 Nev. at 756, 121 P.3d at 590.

2020The district court's errors pertaining to jury instructions will be harmless only if "we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury's verdict was not attributable to the error and that the error was harmless under the facts and circumstances of this case." Crawford, 121 Nev. at 756, 121 P.3d at 590.

2019Further, any error by the district court in failing to sever the trial is subject to a harmless error review, and reversal will only be required if the error had " substantial and injurious effect on the verdict." Id. at 765 , 191 P.3d at 1185 (holding that a joint trial "was not harmless because the joinder had an injurious effect on the verdict").

2019Further, any error by the district court in failing to sever the trial is subject to a harmless error review, and reversal will only be required if the error had " substantial and injurious effect on the verdict." Id. at 765 , 191 P.3d at 1185 (holding that a joint trial "was not harmless because the joinder had an injurious effect on the verdict").

2006We cited to NRS 171.196(4), which is now NRS 171.196(5). [14] 541 U.S. 36, 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [15] Id. at 51-52 ; see also City of Las Vegas v. Walsh, 121 Nev. 899 , ___, 124 P.3d 203, 207-08 (2005). [16] Power v. State, 102 Nev. 381, 384 , 724 P.2d 211, 213 (1986) (stating that Confrontation Clause violations are subject to a harmless error analysis). [17] NRS 171.206; Parsons v. State, 116 Nev. 928, 933 , 10 P.3d 836, 839 (2000). [18] Whittley v. Sheriff, 87 Nev. 614, 616 , 491 P.2d 1282, 1283 (1971). [19] As an additional point, although Crawford is not a rule of

2006We cited to NRS 171.196(4), which is now NRS 171.196(5). [14] 541 U.S. 36, 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). [15] Id. at 51-52 ; see also City of Las Vegas v. Walsh, 121 Nev. 899 , ___, 124 P.3d 203, 207-08 (2005). [16] Power v. State, 102 Nev. 381, 384 , 724 P.2d 211, 213 (1986) (stating that Confrontation Clause violations are subject to a harmless error analysis). [17] NRS 171.206; Parsons v. State, 116 Nev. 928, 933 , 10 P.3d 836, 839 (2000). [18] Whittley v. Sheriff, 87 Nev. 614, 616 , 491 P.2d 1282, 1283 (1971). [19] As an additional point, although Crawford is not a rule of

2010See Medina v. State, 122 Nev. 346, 355 , 143 P.3d 471, 477 (2006) (recognizing that any potential prejudice from a Crawford violation will be reviewed under a harmless-error analysis).

2010See Medina v. State, 122 Nev. 346, 355 , 143 P.3d 471, 477 (2006) (recognizing that any potential prejudice from a Crawford violation will be reviewed under a harmless-error analysis).

2003See Rowland v. State, 118 Nev. 31, 43 , 39 P.3d 114, 122 (2002) (citing Franco v. State, 109 Nev. 1229, 1237 , 866 P.2d 247, 252 (1993) (noting that errors concerning hearsay are subject to a harmless error analysis)); see also Schoels v. State, 115 Nev. 33, 35 , 975 P.2d 1275, 1276 (1999) (noting that an error is harmless if in absence of the error the outcome would have been the same).

2003See Rowland v. State, 118 Nev. 31, 43 , 39 P.3d 114, 122 (2002) (citing Franco v. State, 109 Nev. 1229, 1237 , 866 P.2d 247, 252 (1993) (noting that errors concerning hearsay are subject to a harmless error analysis)); see also Schoels v. State, 115 Nev. 33, 35 , 975 P.2d 1275, 1276 (1999) (noting that an error is harmless if in absence of the error the outcome would have been the same).

1996We believe, however, that this issue is also governed by the harmless error standard.” Franklin v. State, 98 Nev. 266, 271 , 646 P.2d 543, 546 (1982) (citations omitted).

1996We believe, however, that this issue is also governed by the harmless error standard.” Franklin v. State, 98 Nev. 266, 271 , 646 P.2d 543, 546 (1982) (citations omitted).

2013"The harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant's guilt or innocence." Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 (1986).

2013IV. ‘ ‘The harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 (1986).

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)).

2000We take this opportunity to clarify the issue of whether erroneous instructions omitting, misdescribing, or presuming an element of an offense are subject to a harmless-error analysis in light of Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999).

2020Such an error is harmless only "if it did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict," Hubbard v. State, 134 Nev. 450 , 459, 422 P.3d 1260, 1267 (2018), and "Whe State bears the burden of proving that the error was harmless." Belcher v. State, 136 Nev., Adv.

2020Such an error is harmless only "if it did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict," Hubbard v. State, 134 Nev. 450, 459, 422 P.3d 1260, 1267 (2018), and "Whe State bears the burden of proving that the error was harmless." Belcher v. State, 136 Nev., Adv.

2020The district court's jury-instruction errors were not harmless "This court evaluates appellate claims concerning jury instructions using a harmless error standard of review." Mathews v. State, 134 Nev. 512 , 517, 424 P.3d 634, 639 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2020The district court's jury-instruction errors were not harmless "This court evaluates appellate claims concerning jury instructions using a harmless error standard of review." Mathews v. State, 134 Nev. 512, 517, 424 P.3d 634, 639 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2020Doing so "makes perfect sense in light of the nature of the harmless-error inquiry: it is the [States] burden to establish harmlessness, and it cannot expect us to shoulder that burden for it." United States v. Gonzalez-Flores, 418 F.3d 1093, 1100 (9th Cir. 2005).

2020Doing so "makes perfect sense in light of the nature of the harmless-error inquiry: it is the [States] burden to establish harmlessness, and it cannot expect us to shoulder that burden for it." United States v. Gonzalez-Flores, 418 F.3d 1093, 1100 (9th Cir. 2005).

2020See Patterson v. State, 129 Nev. 168, 178-79 , 298 P.3d 433, 439-40 (2013) (addressing a right- to-counsel issue that arose during a preliminary hearing under a harmless- error standard rather than under a structural-error standard because the alleged error did not result in the "total deprivation of counser).

2020See Patterson v. State, 129 Nev. 168, 178-79 , 298 P.3d 433, 439-40 (2013) (addressing a right- to-counsel issue that arose during a preliminary hearing under a harmless- error standard rather than under a structural-error standard because the alleged error did not result in the "total deprivation of counser).

2019See id. at 1188-89, 196 P.3d at 476 (explaining that "this court will not reverse a conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct if it was harmless erroe that did not substantially affect the jury's verdict); see also Hymon, 121 Nev. at 211 , 111 P.3d at 1100 (presuming the jury follows its instructions).

2019See id. at 1188-89, 196 P.3d at 476 (explaining that "this court will not reverse a conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct if it was harmless erroe that did not substantially affect the jury's verdict); see also Hymon, 121 Nev. at 211 , 111 P.3d at 1100 (presuming the jury follows its instructions).

2018Id. at 771 , 137 P.3d at 1192 (recognizing that "judicial involvement in the plea negotiations may constitute harmless error" and "the focus . . . of the harmless error inquiry is whether the district court's [erroneous participation] may reasonably be 'We find this argument lacks merit and decline to address it.

2018Id. at 771 , 137 P.3d at 1192 (recognizing that "judicial involvement in the plea negotiations may constitute harmless error" and "the focus . . . of the harmless error inquiry is whether the district court's [erroneous participation] may reasonably be 'We find this argument lacks merit and decline to address it.

2017Consequently, NRS 48.045(2) barred its admission. 4 Although "[e]rrors in the admission of evidence under NRS 48.045(2) are subject to a harmless error review," Rosky v. State, 121 Nev. ...continued inherently prejudicial nature of such evidence." Foster v. State, 116 Nev. 1088, 1095 , 13 P.3d 61, 66 (2000). 4Although we generally presume that jurors follow the instructions they are given, Summers v. State, 122 Nev. 1326, 1333 , 148 P.3d 778, 783 (2006), we do not believe the district court's limiting instructions were sufficient to remove the prejudicial impact of the evidence in this case.

2017Consequently, NRS 48.045(2) barred its admission. 4 Although "[e]rrors in the admission of evidence under NRS 48.045(2) are subject to a harmless error review," Rosky v. State, 121 Nev. ...continued inherently prejudicial nature of such evidence." Foster v. State, 116 Nev. 1088, 1095 , 13 P.3d 61, 66 (2000). 4Although we generally presume that jurors follow the instructions they are given, Summers v. State, 122 Nev. 1326, 1333 , 148 P.3d 778, 783 (2006), we do not believe the district court's limiting instructions were sufficient to remove the prejudicial impact of the evidence in this case.