Lash (Christopher) v. State

NRS 48.045(2). The specific evidence at issue, however, did not exist at the time of Lash's trial and therefore cannot form the basis for a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. See State v. Bass, 4 So. 3d 353, 357-58 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (explaining that "newly discovered evidence must have been facts that existed at the time of trial," but "which could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence at the time of trial" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). We conclude that the district court reached the right result, albeit for the wrong reason. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) ("If a judgment or order of a trial court reaches the right result, although it is based on an incorrect ground, the judgment or order will be affirmed on appeal."). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

anot-52cf - Parraguirre

2The verification and certificate of compliance submitted by counsel for the State does not comply with NRAP 32(a)(8)(B), see NRAP 3C(h)(3) (requiring fast track certificate of compliance to be substantially in the form required by NRAP 32(a)(8)), because it does not state the number of words in the brief. The statement that the brief "does not exceed 4,667 words or 433 lines of text" does not comply with this requirement. Additionally, the fast track response submitted by the State improperly contains numerous citations to the appendix filed in a different case. See NRAP 3C(f)(1)(C). We caution counsel for the State that the failure to comply with the rules of this court may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A (e)9

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge State Public Defender/Carson City Attorney General/Carson City Carson City District Attorney Carson City Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A ce