Wood-Jimenez (Reina) v. State

Wood-Jimenez appears to assert that the district court erred

by questioning a juror after he indicated disagreement with the verdict rather than directing the jury to continue deliberating or discharging the

jury. See NRS 175.531. The record before this court does not support Wood-Jimenez's assertion that the district court questioned the juror after he indicated disagreement with the verdict. Rather, the record indicates that the district court questioned the juror after he indicated agreement with the verdict. To the extent Wood-Jimenez alleges that the juror's responses to the district court's questioning indicated a clear disagreement with the guilty verdict, we conclude he fails to demonstrate plain error.

See Saletta, 127 Nev. at , 254 P.3d at 114. Wood-Jimenez also asserts that the district court's questioning

of the juror was coercive. We conclude that Wood-Jimenez fails to demonstrate that the substance of the district court's questioning was

plainly coercive. See generally id. at „ 254 P.3d at 113, 114 (jury polling methods are within the district court's discretion and will not be reversed on appeal unless the totality of the circumstances indicate that methods were coercive; "NRS 175.531 is substantially similar to" Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(d)); State v. Lewis, 59 Nev. 262, 279-80, 91 P.2d 820, 826-27 (1939) (court's questioning of juror to clarify answer upon polling was not coercive); 3 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 517 (4th ed. 2012) (noting that pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.

P. 31(d) a "court may exercise considerable discretion if a juror equivocates on the verdict during a poll," and citing cases). Moreover, Wood-Jimenez

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A

MEE A re 1 ni-1;11=13111/14WASI" : ffitA

does not contend that the district court erred by questioning Rodriguez after his agreement with the published verdict or by accepting the unanimity of the verdict at the conclusion of the questioning. Accordingly,

we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 1

Hardesty

119.4tXt'' Cherry

cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge Washoe County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

'Although we filed the fast track appendix submitted by Wood- Jimenez, it fails to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure. All volumes of the appendix are not paginated sequentially and the appendix does not contain a single alphabetical index for all documents in each volume. See NRAP 3C(e)(2)(C); NRAP 30(c). We caution Wood- Jimenez's counsel, John Reese Petty, that the future failure to comply with the rules when preparing briefs and appendices may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n); Smith v. Emery, 109 Nev. 737, 743, 856 P.2d 1386, 1390 (1993).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

3 (0) 1947A

1;57 Mil=11 ,,,,,IIIMINEEMENEMESEMPIESEMEMURMISIMAKI7 • .711111001a7ft