IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
TRACY ANN BAEHR, No. 78535
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, • FILED
Respondent.
- NOV 1 3 2020
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a
jury verdict, of battery with the use of a deadly weapon resulting in
substantial bodily harm constituting domestic violence. Eighth judicial
District Court, Clark County; Tierra Danielle Jones, Judge. Appellant
Tracy Baehr raises two main contentions on appeal.
First, Baehr argues that insufficient evidence supports the
conviction because the State did not disprove that she shot her husband,
the victim, in self-defense or by accident. We disagree. The minor son of
Baehr and the victim testified that Baehr initiated physical contact by
striking the victim multiple times while inside the house. The victim
testified similarly. He also testified that once Baehr left the house and went
into the garage, he followed, she pointed her gun at him, he took her to the
ground by her arm, and then she shot him in the leg. That Baehr testified
differently does not affect our decision because it is the jury, not this court,
that "weigh[s] the evidence and pass[es] upon the credibility of the witness."
Walker v. State, 91 Nev. 724, 726,
542 P.2d 438, 439 (1975); see also Bolden
'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument
is not warranted in this appeal.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A
7-0
v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 72-73,
624 P.2d 20, 20 (1981) (upholding a jury verdict
where conflicting testimony was presented). Thus, viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the State, it was sufficient to establish guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a rational trier of fact.2 See
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (stating standard for
reviewing sufficiency of the evidence); Mitchell v. State, 124 Nev. 807, 816,
192 P.3d 721, 727 (2008) (same); NRS 33.018(1) (defining acts that
constitute domestic violence ); NRS 200.481 (defining battery); NRS 193.200
("Intention is manifested by the circumstances connected with the
perpetration of the offense.").
Second, Baehr claims the district court erred in sustaining two
State objections, which improperly limited her cross-examination. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining a hearsay objection
where Baehr's question would elicit what a prosecutor said to the victim
during a pretrial interview. See Rarnet v. State, 125 Nev. 195, 198,
209 P.3d
268, 269 (2009) (reviewing a district court's decision to admit or exclude
evidence for an abuse of discretion); see also NRS 51.035 (defining hearsay);
NRS 51.065 (providing when hearsay is inadmissible). Baehr's claim that
she intended to elicit the effect the statement had on the victim is
unavailing where the question could only elicit an inadmissible out-of-court
statement, and Baehr withdrew the question without attempting to
rephrase it to elicit non-hearsay or proffer to the district court that it was
not being offered for the truth of the matter.
2To the extent Baehr argues that the jury failed to follow the district
court's self-defense and accident instructions, we must presume that the
jury followed the instructions. See Leonard v. State, 117 Nev. 53, 66,
17
P.3d 397, 405 (2001).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
10) 1947A ADO
Also, the district court did not abuse its discretion or violate
Baehr's confrontation clause rights in sustaining the State's asked-andanswered objections after Baehr posed similar questions to the son several
different times. See Mendoza v. State, 122 Nev. 267, 277,
130 P.3d 176, 182
(2006) (Determinations of whether a limitation on cross-examination
infringes upon the constitutional right of confrontation are reviewed de
novo."); Leonard, 117 Nev. at 72, 17 P.3d at 409 (explaining the district
court's broad latitude to restrict cross-examination that is aimed at
exploring potential bias when the court has concerns about witness
harassment, issue confusion, and/or repetitive questions). Baehr's
contention that she was not asking the same question but rather asking
why the son thought his trial testimony differed from his pretrial
statements does not support a confrontation clause violation where Baehr
had already posed that question to the son, Baehr asked it again after the
district court sustained the objection, and the son answered each time.3
Having considered Baehr's claims and concluded that no relief is warranted,
we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Parraguirre
A6.-t .-eaA , J. J.
Hardesty Cadish
3As we have not identified any errors, Baehr's cumulative error claim
fails.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
0) 1947A cetaiDD
cc: Hon. Tierra Danielle Jones, District Judge
Justice Law Center
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) i 947A
