Opinion
No. 61910
2013-09-18
JOHN DOUGLAS CHARTIER, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court order denying appellant John Douglas Chartier's motion for a new trial. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kathleen E. Delaney, Judge.
Chartier contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence—a letter written by Chartier's coconspirator, David Wilcox, asserting there was no conspiracy and he alone murdered the victims. We review a district court's ruling on a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion. Servin v. State, 117 Nev. 775, 792, 32 P.3d 1277, 1289 (2001). "An abuse of discretion occurs if the district court's decision is arbitrary or capricious or if it exceeds the bounds of law or reason." Jackson v. State, 117 Nev. 116, 120, 17 P.3d 998, 1000 (2001).
The record reveals that the district court heard argument on the motion; looked at the letter and its circumstances; considered the criteria for newly-discovered evidence listed in Oliver v. State, 85 Nev. 418, 424, 456 P.2d 431, 435 (1969); carefully considered our holdings in Burton v. State, 84 Nev. 191, 196, 437 P.2d 861, 864 (1968) (discussing evidence offered by codefendant following his conviction), and Jones v. State, 108 Nev. 651, 657-58, 837 P.2d 1349, 1353 (1992) (distinguishing Burton on the facts); and found that the letter was not sufficient on its own to warrant a new trial. Based on this record, we conclude Chartier has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
____________, J.
Gibbons
____________, J.
Douglas
____________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge
Lance J. Hendron
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk