IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
JUSTIN EDMISTON, A/K/A JUSTIN No. 76814
JAMES EDMINSTON, A/K/A JUSTIN
EDMISTEN,
Appellant,
FILE
vs. SEP 1 8 2020
THE STATE OF NEVADA, ELIZABETH A. BROWN
Res • ondent. CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
BY 5-Nt
DEPtg=r1 (
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a
jury verdict, of burglary, burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon,
robbery, ownership or possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and
two counts of attempted robbery with the use of a deadly weapon.1 Eighth
Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kathleen E. Delaney, Judge.
A jury convicted appellant Justin Edmiston of robbing a
convenience store and attempting to rob another. Edmiston first argues
that the State's fingerprint testing damaged a robbery note found at the
first crime scene. He contends that it hindered his defense because
handwriting analysis could have shown that he did not write the note.2 We
disagree, as Edmiston neither argues the State acted in bad faith nor shows
1 Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we conclude that oral argument is not
warranted.
2To the extent Edmiston contends he was unable to conduct an
independent fingerprint analysis, we conclude this argument lacks merit.
The State's analyst excluded Edmiston as the source of the identifiable
fingerprints, and nothing prevented him from conducting independent
testing of the unidentified fingerprint. Moreover, Edmiston has not shown
that additional fingerprint testing would have affected the outcome of the
trial.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVAIM
01 1947* alelbD
2o -391171
the absence of this potential evidence prejudiced him in light of the strong
evidence of his guilt adduced at trial, including eyewitness testimony and
surveillance video from both stores. See Sparks v. State,
(1988) (holding that the loss or destruction of evidence
warrants reversal only "if (1) the defendant is prejudiced by the loss or, (2)
the evidence was 'lost in bad faith by the government"); Boggs v. State,
(1979) ("It is not sufficient that the showing
disclose merely a hoped-for conclusion from examination of the destroyed
evidence . . [or] that exarnination of the evidence would be helpful in
preparing [a] defense.").
Edmiston next argues that the district court erred by not giving
a limiting instruction after a law enforcement officer testified regarding a
"hit" in the SCOPE database because the jury could believe that being in
the database suggested prior criminal activity. We review for plain error
because Edmiston did not object to the officer's testimony and did not
request a limiting instruction or object when the district court decided that
one was not necessary, see Martinorellan v. State,
, 593 (2015) (holding that this court reviews all unpreserved errors "for
plain error without regard as to whether they are of constitutional
dimension"), and disagree. The officer mentioned the SCOPE database once
and made no other reference to Edmiston's criminal history. Having
considered the passing comment in context, we conclude that the officer's
testimony and the omission of a limiting instruction did not affect
Edmiston's substantial rights. See NRS 178.602 (providing the plain error
standard); see also Martinorellan, 131 Nev. at 49, 343 P.3d at 593
([R]eversal for plain error is only warranted if the error is readily apparent
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
10) I 947A 441als.
and the appellant demonstrates that the error was prejudicial to his
substantial rights."). Therefore, we discern no plain error. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Pa rraguirre
/ ,
Hardesty
o
, J.
Cadish
cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge
Pitaro & Furno, Chtd.
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
