statement offered against him. 1 See NRS 51.035(3)(a); E/vik v. State, 114
Nev. 883, 896, 965 P.2d 281, 289-90 (1998).
Appellant next argues that the district court improperly
admitted hearsay testimony concerning the victim's arrest for solicitation
along with another young woman with whom appellant had contact.
Appellant suggests that the testimony resulted in his conviction based on
guilt by association. Appellant objected, and the district court sustained
the objection. The parties subsequently agreed to craft an appropriate
curative instruction. Although it is unclear from the limited record
provided by appellant whether an instruction was given to the jury, we
nevertheless conclude that any error was harmless considering the
strength of the evidence against appellant, the relative insignificance of
the challenged testimony, and the gravity of the offense. Smith v. State,
111 Nev. 499, 506, 894 P.2d 974, 978 (1995).
'In the fast track statement, appellant cites to an unpublished order
of this court for support. We remind appellant's counsel that an
unpublished order has no precedential value and it is improper to cite to
and rely on unpublished dispositions of this court. See SCR 123 (providing
that "[a]n unpublished opinion or order of [this court] shall not be
regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority" subject to
exceptions that do not apply here).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
U
Having considered appellant's arguments and concluded that
they lack merit, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 2
Jeg.4-7Z-1 J.
Hardesty
J.
0\247
Cherry
cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge
Marchese Law Office
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
2 Despite appellant counsel's verification that the fast track
statement complies with applicable formatting requirements, the fast
track statement does not comply with NRAP 32(a)(5) because the footnotes
are not the same typeface and size as the body of the text. See NRAP
3C(h)(1). We also note that despite respondent counsel's verification that
the fast track response complies with applicable formatting requirements,
the fast track response does not comply with NRAP 32(a)(4) because
portions of it are not double-spaced. See id. We caution counsel that
future failure to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure
when filing briefs with this court may result in the imposition of sanctions.
See NRAP 3C(n); NRAP 28.2(b).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A ,