claim of cumulative error in Nevada

2024When evaluating a claim of cumulative error, relevant factors include "(1) whether the issue of guilt is close, (2) the quantity and character of the error, and (3) the gravity of the crime charged." Mulder v. State, 116 Nev. 1 , 17, 992 P.2d 845, 854-55 (2000).

2024When evaluating a claim of cumulative error, relevant factors include "(1) whether the issue of guilt is close, (2) the quantity and character of the error, and (3) the gravity of the crime charged." Mulder v. State, 116 Nev. 1, 17, 992 P.2d 845, 854-55 (2000).

2022See Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1195 , 196 P.3d 465, 481 (2008) (providing the relevant factors to consider for a claim of cumulative error).

2022See Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1195 , 196 P.3d 465, 481 (2008) (providing the relevant factors to consider for a claim of cumulative error).

2022See Turner v. State, 1386 Nev. 545 , 556, 473 P.3d 438, 449 (2020) (‘When evaluating a claim of cumulative error, we consider the following factors: (1) whether the issue of guilt is close, (2) the quantity and character of the error, and (3) the gravity of the crime charged.”).

2022See Turner v. State, 136 Nev. 545 , 556, 473 P.3d 438, 449 (2020) ("When evaluating a claim of cumulative error, we consider the following factors: (1) whether the issue of guilt is close, (2) the quantity and character of the error, and (3) the gravity of the crime charged."). 9

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2018Furthermore, this court has noted that a defendant is "not entitled to a perfect trial, but only to a fair trial." Ennis v. State, 91 Nev. 530, 533 , 539 P.2d 114, 115 (1975).

2018Furthermore, this court has noted that a defendant is "not entitled to a perfect trial, but only to a fair trial." Ennis v. State, 91 Nev. 530, 533 , 539 P.2d 114, 115 (1975).

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

2003Because appellant argues that imposition of the death penalty after remand and retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, we reach this issue and conclude that the district court was not required to poll the jurors. 65 CONCLUSION We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction due to cumulative error and remand for a new trial. 1 We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court’s docket to conform with the caption on this opinion. 2 The State concedes that the death sentences must be reversed pursuant to the recent decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and

1998Relevant factors to consider in evaluating a claim of cumulative error include whether “ ‘the issue of innocence or guilt is close, the quantity and character of the error, and the gravity of the crime charged.’” Homick v. State, 112 Nev. 304, 316 , 913 P.2d 1280, 1289 (1996) (quoting Big Pond, 101 Nev. at 3 , 692 P.2d at 1289 ), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1012 , 117 S.Ct. 519 (1996); see also Lay, 110 Nev. at 1199 , 886 P.2d at 454 .

1998Relevant factors to consider in evaluating a claim of cumulative error include whether “ ‘the issue of innocence or guilt is close, the quantity and character of the error, and the gravity of the crime charged.’” Homick v. State, 112 Nev. 304, 316 , 913 P.2d 1280, 1289 (1996) (quoting Big Pond, 101 Nev. at 3 , 692 P.2d at 1289 ), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1012 , 117 S.Ct. 519 (1996); see also Lay, 110 Nev. at 1199 , 886 P.2d at 454 .

1998Relevant factors to consider in evaluating a claim of cumulative error include whether “ ‘the issue of innocence or guilt is close, the quantity and character of the error, and the gravity of the crime charged.’” Homick v. State, 112 Nev. 304, 316 , 913 P.2d 1280, 1289 (1996) (quoting Big Pond, 101 Nev. at 3 , 692 P.2d at 1289 ), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1012 , 117 S.Ct. 519 (1996); see also Lay, 110 Nev. at 1199 , 886 P.2d at 454 .

1998Relevant factors to consider in evaluating a claim of cumulative error include whether “ ‘the issue of innocence or guilt is close, the quantity and character of the error, and the gravity of the crime charged.’” Homick v. State, 112 Nev. 304, 316 , 913 P.2d 1280, 1289 (1996) (quoting Big Pond, 101 Nev. at 3 , 692 P.2d at 1289 ), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1012 , 117 S.Ct. 519 (1996); see also Lay, 110 Nev. at 1199 , 886 P.2d at 454 .