The real party in interest, Carmen Gustin, is awaiting trial on
charges of child abuse and neglect with substantial bodily harm, child
abuse and neglect, and destroying evidence. The allegations stem from
Gustin's 10-year-old son, Cole, accessing Gustin's revolver and shooting
himself in the forehead in the presence of Gustin's 3-year-old son. In a
pretrial motion to admit a prior bad act, the State sought admission of
evidence related to an incident in 2005, where Gustin's then 10-year-old
son, Cheney Gustin, fired a gun, the bullet travelling through the walls of
the apartment next door. After a hearing, the district court denied the
motion "[Necause of the differences in the nature of the storage of the
guns in the two different incidents," concluding that the prior bad act was
more prejudicial than probative. The district court is afforded broad
discretion in evidentiary matters, see Somee v. State, 124 Nev. 434, 446,
187 P.3d 152, 160 (2008); Ledbetter v. State, 122 Nev. 252, 259, 129 P.3d
671, 676 (2006), and, in particular, we have expressed our disfavor of prior
bad act evidence given the frequent irrelevant and prejudicial nature of it,
see Rhymes v. State, 121 Nev. 17, 21, 107 P.3d 1278, 1280 (2005). Nothing
in the record before us suggests that the district court's ruling was a
manifest abuse of discretion or an arbitrary or capricious act. See State v.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. „ 267 P.3d 777,
780 (2011) (defining manifest abuse of discretion as a clearly erroneous
interpretation or application of the law and arbitrary or capricious
exercise of discretion as "one founded on prejudice or preference rather
than on reason" or "contrary to the evidence or established rules of law"
(internal quotations and citations omitted)). Rather, the district court
made a thoughtful decision that is supported by law. We also note that
the district court advised the State that if the evidence developed at trial
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
tt.V.474 ‘41±.:•,.214,
2 ±4141÷."..L.:, . : ''• • • • C-4•11NEE4Igt_;..a.i.44 11'.1:0..'11-::
more closely resembled the facts of the prior bad act, the State could again
seek admission of the evidence.
Considering the district court's reasoned decision and the
State's opportunity at trial to again seek admission of the evidence, we
cannot say that the district court manifestly abused its discretion or
exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner in denying
the State's motion. Therefore, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Gibbons
cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Leo P. Flangas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
1
,11•41.11 -11
Ma= • .
KtiM