conduct was improper, and, if so, whether reversal is warranted. Id. at
1188, 196 P.3d at 476.
Smith first argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct
by misrepresenting defense characterizations of a 2012 offense. No
objection was made. Having considered the record and the prosecutor's
statements regarding the 2012 case, Smith has not shown actual prejudice
or a miscarriage of justice. Thus, we conclude that relief is not warranted
for Smith's claim of prosecutorial misconduct.
Smith also argued that the prosecutor committed misconduct
by mischaracterizing the timing of Smith's guilty plea as it related to his
remorsefulness and preserved this objection below. As the prosecutor was
merely responding to defense counsel's arguments in favor of Smith's
remorsefulness and did not misstate the record, see Sherman v. State, 114
Nev. 998, 1016, 965 P.2d 903, 915 (1998), we conclude that the prosecutor
did not act improperly.
Smith next argues that the district court admitted improper
victim-impact testimony when it permitted the victim to present hearsay
evidence from an unknown source, make improper comments regarding
future potential crimes, and question Smith's remorsefulness. Victims
may express their views regarding the crime, the perpetrator, the crime's
impact, and restitution. NRS 176.015(3)(b). While the reference to future
potential crimes was improper and it was error to permit the victim to
introduce hearsay without providing Smith with notice of the identity of
the hearsay's source in order to have an adequate opportunity to rebut
that testimony, see Sherman, 114 Nev. at 1015, 965 P.2d at 915;
Buschauer v. State, 106 Nev. 890, 894, 804 P.2d 1046, 1049 (1990), Smith
was not prejudiced by that error because the district court had been
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A ea
presented with grisly details of the crime and Smith's extensive criminal
history, the district court stated that it sentenced him on the basis of the
nature of the crime and his criminal record, and we have held that "[t]he
district court is capable of listening to the victim's feelings without being
subjected to an overwhelming influence by the victim in making its
sentencing decision." Randell v. State, 109 Nev. 5, 8, 846 P.2d 278, 280
(1993). As NRS 176.015(3)(b) permits a victim to "[r] easonably express
any views concerning . . . the person responsible," the district court did not
err in permitting the victim to question Smith's remorsefulness.
Therefore, we conclude that Smith has not shown prejudice.
Having considered Smith's arguments and concluded that they
are without merit, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
dadi1/4
Saitta
J.
cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge
Washoe County Alternate Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A AIle99