the law to those facts de nova. Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120
P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005).
First, appellant claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to hire and present an accident-reconstruction expert to testify that
the crash was an accident. In support, appellant presented a report and
testimony from an accident-reconstruction expert that the crash could
have been the result of overcorrection of the vehicle after it left the
roadway to pass another vehicle. Substantial evidence supports the
district court's decision to deny this claim. First, the opinion of the expert
that the accident could have been caused by overcorrection, although
based on his experience, was speculative as he admitted at the evidentiary
hearing that there was no independent evidentiary support for his opinion
regarding the cause of the crash. More importantly, the overcorrection-
theory was contrary to appellant's own testimony at trial that the vehicle
crashed after the victim grabbed the steering wheel. Trial counsel is not
deficient for failing to present an expert that would have contradicted the
testimony of his client. In light of the evidence presented at trial from the
witnesses and the victim, appellant fails to demonstrate that there was a
reasonable probability of a different outcome had trial counsel hired and
presented an accident-reconstruction expert. Therefore, we conclude that
the district court did not err in denying this claim.
Next, appellant claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to present an expert in the locking mechanism of the Honda vehicle
and for failing to ask the victim why she did not exit the vehicle after
appellant drove her away from the store. Appellant argues that trial
counsel would have been able to negate the kidnapping charge had this
evidence been presented and more questions been asked at trial.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
Appellant fails to demonstrate that his counsel was ineffective. The
elements of kidnapping were established when appellant, willfully and
without lawful authority, forced his wife into the vehicle and drove away
from the store for the purpose of detaining her.] See NRS 200.310(2)
(setting forth the elements of second degree kidnapping). The fact that the
lock could have been manually disengaged or that there were stop signs
and traffic lights that may have halted the vehicle's journey temporarily
does not negate the fact that the crime of kidnapping had been committed
when appellant drove away. Thus, appellant failed to demonstrate that
his trial counsel's performance was deficient or that there was a
reasonable probability of a different outcome had trial counsel presented
an expert or questioned the victim about her ability to leave the vehicle.
Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying these
claims.
Finally, appellant argues that the district court erred in
denying his claim that he was incompetent at the time of trial. First, we
note that this claim was subject to the mandatory procedural bar of NRS
34.810(1)(b) because it was a claim that could have been raised on direct
3-We note that the victim testified that after he forced her into the
vehicle he stood by the passenger door, and when she tried to climb over
the center console to leave by the driver side door, he ran to that door and
entered the vehicle. She moved back to the passenger seat and reached for
the handle, but appellant subsequently engaged the door locks for the
vehicle so that she, in her own words, "couldn't get out." We further note
that there was not any testimony that the victim knew that she could
manually unlock the door or that appellant stopped at any designated
traffic device before entering 1-80. The jury was presented with testimony
that the victim was able to exit the vehicle after the crash.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
appea1. 2 And we note that appellant had in fact unsuccessfully challenged
a pretrial competency decision on direct appeal. Martin v. State, Docket
No. 47037 (Order of Affirmance, November 13, 2006). The doctrine of the
law of the case prevents further litigation of this issue and cannot be
avoided based upon a more detailed and precisely focused argument. See
Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 535 P.2d 797 (1975). In raising his competency
claim again, appellant made no cogent or compelling argument below that
the court should not foreclose his claim based upon the doctrine of the law
of the case. Even assuming that appellant had demonstrated good cause
or argued that he could overcome the doctrine of the law of the case
because of substantially new or different evidence discovered, see Hsu v.
County of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630, 173 P.3d 724, 729 (2007), substantial
evidence supports the district court's decision that appellant was
competent at the time of the trial—he understood the nature of the
charges and proceedings and was able to assist counsel. See NRS
178.400(2); Melchor-Gloria v. State, 99 Nev. 174, 180, 600 P.2d 109, 113
(1983); see also Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960). The district
court considered the various mental health evaluations and mental health
hearings and determined that the evaluations of the doctors who found
appellant competent at the time of the trial proceedings carried more
weight than evaluations done years after the trial had concluded. We
defer to this finding. Further, the doctors who evaluated appellant at the
time of trial were aware of his medications as those medications are
referenced in their reports. The fact that appellant did not present well in
2Although appellant appeared to raise this claim under the umbrella
of ineffective assistance of counsel in the amended petition, appellant fails
to do so on appeal to this court.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A a
front of the jury is not a demonstration of incompetence under the legal
definition of incompetence. Therefore, we conclude that the district court
did not err in denying this claim. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
itLA tLitt„ J.
Hardesty
J.
J.
cc: Hon. Lidia Stiglich, District Judge
Mary Lou Wilson
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 1947A 99t0.