IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ERIC JORELL MATHIS, No. 77071
Appellant,
vs. Flo ED
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Respondent. OCT 01 B20
ELIZe A. FRU,' A
CLEW F ' JWEME
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE SY—
CLeix
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a
jury verdict, of duty to stop at the scene of a crash involving personal injury.
Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Kathleen M. Drakulich,
Judge.
AppelIant Eric Mathis was involved in a car crash where one
person was injured. When police arrived at the scene, Mathis fled. The
State charged him with breaching his duty to stop at the scene of a crash
resulting in personal injury, in violation of NRS 484E.010(1) and NRS
484E.030(1). He represented himself at trial and the jury convicted him of
the crime charged.
Mathis first argues that a rational trier of fact could not have
convicted him based on the States evidence. We disagree. NRS
484E.010(1) provides that drivers involved in a crash resulting in personal
injury have a duty to stop at the scene of the crash, and NRS 484E.030(1)
requires such drivers to provide identifying information and render
reasonable aid. Mathis's testimony alone is enough to sustain the
conviction because he admitted that he was involved in the crash and fled
from police. He also admitted that he could not definitively rule out that he
struck the victim with his vehicle. This evidence is sufficient to support a
guilty verdict. See McNair v. State,
, 573
SUPREME COURT
Or
NEVADA
(0) I947A 4103,
zo- 3rIqr
(1992) (In a criminal case, a verdict supported by substantial evidence will
not be disturbed by a reviewing court.").
Second, Mathis argues that the State committed prosecutorial
misconduct when it informed his witness that she would not be called to
testify that day and could therefore leave. The district court confirmed that
Mathis's witness "was going to leave anyway," so the State's conduct was
not improper. Moreover, once Mathis learned that his witness would be
testifying only to hearsay, he willingly chose not to call her. So even if the
State erred, such error was harmless and does not warrant reversal. Valdez
v. State,
(2008) ("[We] will not
reverse a conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct if it was harmless
error.").
Third, Mathis argues that the State improperly put forth
hearsay testimony of the victim via cross-examination of Mathis's collision
reconstruction expert without having called the victim as a witness.
Because Mathis did not object, we review the testimony for plain error and
find none because nothing in the record supports that this questioning was
improper or caused any form of "actual prejudice or a miscarriage of justice."
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Lastly, Mathis claims that the district court erred by denying
his pretrial motion. to suppress statements made to medical staff. Mathis
argues that the police violated his Miranda rights when paramedics
questioned him in the back of a police car while the patrol camera was on.
The patrol camera video included in the record does not show Mathis
interacting with paramedics. In fact, no portion of the record shows that
paramedics questioned Mathis. Greene v. State,
(1980) (holding "Nile burden to make a proper appellate record on
SUPREME COURT
Of
NEVADA
2
10) I )47A
appeal rests on appellanr). Nonetheless, Mathis answered at trial each of
the material questions the paramedics allegedly asked him. Thus, we
conclude there was no Miranda violation. Rosky u. State,
(2005) (providing that this court reviews the factual
findings for clear error and whether the person was in custody when they
made the statement and whether the statement was voluntary de novo).
For the reasons discussed above, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.1
, j.
Stiglich
J.
Silver
cc: Hon. Kathleen M. Drakulich, District Judge
Karla K. Butko
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
1We have reviewed Mathis's remaining arguments and determined
they are without merit.
3
