sitting on a curb after he, Cassandra Niccoli, and Stephan Gale left a Reno
club. He did not think much of it until a half a block later when he heard
footsteps and a shout behind him and saw someone grab Niccoli's purse.
Block identified Luis Sanchez as the person who hit him over the head
when he went to Niccoli's aid. He observed the suspects flee in a white
sedan. Niccoli identified Jose Cruz and Aurora Rodriguez as the people
who approached her and tried to take her purse. A forensic investigator
testified that she responded to the Reno Police Department to photograph
four people who were possibly involved in the case. She identified these
people as Sanchez, Luis Sanchez, Jose Cruz, and Aurora Rodriguez. We
conclude that this independent evidence was sufficient to connect Sanchez
to the commission of the offenses and thereby corroborate Luis Sanchez's
and Aurora Rodriguez's testimony.
Second, Sanchez contends that the district court erred by
admitting autopsy photographs depicting the murder victim's heart and
liver into evidence because they were very graphic and not needed to
explain the cause of death. "The admissibility of gruesome photographs
showing wounds on the victim's body lies within the sound discretion of
the district court and, absent an abuse of that discretion, the decision will
not be overturned." Flores v. State, 121 Nev. 706, 722, 120 P.3d 1170,
1180 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). The record reveals that
the district court conducted a hearing outside the presence of the jury to
determine the admissibility of the photographs. The district court viewed
the photographs, heard testimony from the forensic pathologist,
considered the parties' arguments, and found that the photographs would
assist the jury in determining a fact in issue. We conclude from this
record that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
1,14,
Third, Sanchez contends that the district court committed
plain error by admitting evidence of unrelated crimes during the penalty
phase of his trial. "The decision to admit particular evidence during the
penalty phase is within the sound discretion of the district court and will
not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion." McKenna v. State,
114 Nev. 1044, 1051, 968 P.2d 739, 744 (1998). "[E]vidence may be
presented concerning aggravating and mitigating circumstances relative
to the offense, defendant or victim and on any other matter which the
court deems relevant to the sentence, whether or not the evidence is
ordinarily admissible." NRS 175.552(3). "[E]vidence of unrelated offenses
for which a defendant has not been convicted is admissible at a penalty
phase unless it is dubious or tenuous or its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or the other concerns set
forth in NRS 48.035." Mason v. State, 118 Nev. 554, 562, 51 P.3d 521, 526
(2002). We have reviewed the penalty hearing transcript and conclude
that Sanchez has failed to demonstrate that the district court committed
plain error in this regard. See Mclellan v. State, 124 Nev. 263, 267, 182
P.3d 106, 109 (2008) (discussing plain-error review).
Having concluded that Sanchez is not entitled to relief, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Gibbons
Lug .441/4--s
Douglas Saitta
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge
Edward T. Reed
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A
affilila iThIMM 1111
Sanchez (Jacob) v. State
Combined Opinion