IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
EDWARD BEDROS BEDROSIAN, A/K/A No. 80532
EDWARD BEDROS BEDRUSIAN,
Appellant,
vs.
FILED
THE STATE OF NEVADA, JUL 0 9 2021
Res • ondent. ELIZABETH A. BROWN
CLERK,FAJPREME COURT
BY • Ye ---
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE DEPUTY CLERK
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a
jury verdict, of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon.'
Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Valerie Adair, Judge.
Appellant Edward Bedrosian argues that the district court
erred in conducting numerous unrecorded bench conferences. We agree
that the district court should have recorded the bench conferences or made
a more complete record during subsequent trial breaks. See Preciado v.
State, 130 Nev. 40, 43,
318 P.3d 176, 178 (2014) (providing that "it is crucial
for a district court to memorialize all bench conferences, either
contemporaneously or by allowing the attorneys to make a record
afterward"). But, the district court's error "warrants reversal only if the
appellant shows that the record's missing portions are so significant that
their absence precludes this court from conducting a meaningful review of
the alleged errors that the appellant identified and the prejudicial effect of
any error," id., and Bedrosian has not shown that here. While Bedrosian
mentions some of the alleged errors that were the subject matter of the
bench conferences, he does not provide any relevant authority in support;
'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we conclude that oral argument is not
warranted.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) I947A 90011,4
11-1q-7:3
instead, he contends that he cannot properly raise these issues based on the
unrecorded bench conferences. We disagree because on multiple occasions
Bedrosian made a record about what occurred during an unrecorded bench
conference. Bedrosian's requests to make a record signal that he was able
to preserve contested issues and that the district court did not impede the
parties from making a record. Cf. id. (district court denied defendant's
"motion to settle the trial record and reconstruct the unrecorded
conferencee); Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 507,
78 P.3d 890, 897 (2003)
(district court denied defendant's motion "to have all the proceedings of his
case reported and transcribed"). Because Bedrosian does not adequately
raise any separate grounds for relief related to the unrecorded bench
conferences, we cannot conclude that "the district court's failure to record
all conferences prejudiced his appeal." Preciado, 130 Nev. at 43, 318 P.3d
at 178. Thus, we conclude that Bedrosian has not shown that relief is
warranted.
Bedrosian also argues that the district court erred in denying
his motion for a mistrial after the State elicited hearsay testimony but he
provides no relevant authority. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673,
748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987) (providing that an appellant must "present relevant
authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not be
addressed by this coure). However, after reviewing the record and
considering the claim on the merits, we conclude that Bedrosian has not
shown that the district court abused its discretion. See Rudin v. State, 120
Nev. 121, 142,
86 P.3d 572, 586 (2004) ("The trial court has discretion to
determine whether a mistrial is warranted, and its judgment will not be
overturned absent an abuse of discretion.").
SUPPEW COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I 447A Glapp,
Here, Bedrosian contends that the State elicited inadmissible
hearsay testimony when a witness testified that she gave the victim $3,200
to purchase a vehicle and the State's questioning implied that Bedrosian
received the money. But Bedrosian testified that he tried to help the victim
and the witness purchase a vehicle and they gave him $500 to that end.
Accordingly, the task of determining what amount of money Bedrosian
obtained was left to the jury. See Stewart v. State, 94 Nev. 378, 379,
580
P.2d 473, 473 (1978) (providing that this court has consistently "held that
where there is conflicting testimony presented, it is for the jury to determine
what weight and credibility to give to the testimony" (internal quotation
marks omitted)). Thus, we conclude that Bedrosian has not shown that
relief is warranted. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.2
Hardesty
cc: Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court
Department 21, Eighth Judicial District Court
Brian S. Rutledge
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
2The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the
decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A 444;PD
