Willing (Nicholas) v. State

that, even if the jury had been informed of the theft case, there was not a reasonable likelihood the result at trial would have been different because Sexton's credibility was explored at trial, other testimony incriminated Willing, and substantial evidence was presented which demonstrated that it would have been almost impossible for Sexton to plan the crimes without Willing's involvement. See Sanborn v. State, 107 Nev. 399, 406, 812 P.2d 1279, 1284-85 (1991) (newly discovered evidence must be "not only an attempt to contradict, impeach, or discredit a former witness, unless the witness is so important that a different result would be reasonably probable"); King v. State, 95 Nev. 497, 500, 596 P.2d 501, 503 (1979). 2 Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3

Pickering

cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge Donald J. Green Nye County District Attorney Attorney General/Carson City Nye County Clerk

Footnotes

[2] Willing also contends that he was deprived of his right to confront Sexton. Although we need not consider this contention because it does not appear that it was raised below, see Davis v. State, 107 Nev. 600, 606, 817 P.2d 1169, 1173 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 103 P.3d 25 (2004), we note that any error would have been harmless, see Medina v. State, 122 Nev. 346, 355, 143 P.3d 471, 476 (2006).

[3] Thefast track response does not comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure because it is not double-spaced. See NRAP 32(a)(4); NRAP 3C(h)(1). We caution counsel for the State that future failure to comply with the rules of this court when filing briefs may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A (ze