Nevada: Incorrect Analysis of Fact and Law is Harmless Error in Denying Motion for New Trial

The Nevada Supreme Court held that a trial court abused its discretion by wrongly categorizing a fact and subsequently applying the incorrect legal standard to it in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial. But, finding the abuse of discretion was “harmless error,” the court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion.

Wackenhut of Nevada, Inc. (“Wackenhut”) had judgment entered against it after a jury trial, and Wackenhut subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, alleging claims of misconduct by the plaintiffs’ counsel. The trial court denied the motion and Wackenhut appealed. As the trial court had not supported the judgment with its findings, the Nevada Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for it to do so. The trial court then supported its judgment with findings that misconduct by the plaintiffs’ counsel had not been objected to and that the plain error standard applied. On July 18, 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court determined that, although the trial court had erred in its reasoning, the error was harmless.

Of each of the attorney misconduct claims that Wackenhut alleged in support of its motion, the trial court apparently only considered one as an actual act of misconduct: plaintiffs’ counsel commented to the judge during the examination of a witness that “there may be some coaching the witness while I’m asking him questions.” At that point, one of the plaintiffs objected and moved for a mistrial. The trial court instructed the jury to disregard counsel’s statement and denied the motion for a mistrial.

Applying the appropriate state standard governing misconduct for the purpose of adjudicating Wackenhut’s motion for a new trial, the trial court concluded that the misconduct had not been objected to and therefore applied the plain error standard. As a result, the trial court denied the motions.

Having these findings before it, the appellate court determined that the trial court had abused its discretion. First, as the misconduct had been objected to during the trial, to categorize the misconduct as not being objected to was error. Second, due to this incorrect categorization, the trial court erroneously applied the plain error standard.

Nevertheless, the appellate court held that this analysis was “harmless error” and affirmed the trial court’s judgment as “[t]he [trial] court expressly admonished the jury that no coaching occurred, and we presume that the jury” obeyed. See: Wackenhut of Nevada, Inc. v. Smith, 2014 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 1064.

Related legal case