McDowell v. State
103 Nev. 527, 746 P.2d 149 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Nevada law, only "slight evidence" of a conspiracy is required for a trial court to admit a co-conspirator's out-of-court statement made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy, and this evidentiary standard does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.
Facts:
- After more than a month of planning, McDowell and several co-conspirators formulated a plan to rob the home of Carl and Colleen Gordon.
- One of the co-conspirators, Dale Flanagan, was the Gordons' grandson.
- McDowell and other co-conspirators went to the Gordon residence and entered the home through a window.
- While McDowell ransacked the house for valuables, his cohorts murdered Carl and Colleen Gordon pursuant to the overall plan.
Procedural Posture:
- McDowell was tried jointly with his co-conspirators in a Nevada district court (trial court).
- During the trial, the court denied McDowell's motion to sever his trial from his co-defendants.
- The trial court admitted out-of-court statements made by co-conspirators into evidence against McDowell, finding the existence of a conspiracy by the 'slight evidence' standard.
- A jury convicted McDowell of two counts of murder, one count of robbery, and three counts of conspiracy.
- McDowell, as appellant, appealed the judgment of conviction to this court, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause require a trial court to find the existence of a conspiracy by a 'preponderance of the evidence' before admitting a co-conspirator's out-of-court statements against a defendant, or is Nevada's 'slight evidence' standard constitutionally sufficient?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause does not require a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard; Nevada's 'slight evidence' standard is constitutionally permissible for admitting co-conspirator statements. The court reasoned that while the U.S. Supreme Court in Bourjaily v. U.S. adopted a preponderance standard for federal courts, that decision was based on an interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence, not a constitutional command. As there is no constitutional reason to overturn Nevada precedent (Fish v. State), the court adheres to the 'slight evidence' standard under the principle of stare decisis. The court also held that by joining a conspiracy, a defendant implicitly adopts all prior acts and declarations of fellow co-conspirators made in furtherance of the conspiracy, making them admissible against him.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Nevada's distinct and lower evidentiary threshold for admitting co-conspirator hearsay compared to the federal system. It clarifies that the federal standard is a matter of statutory rule interpretation, not constitutional law, thereby preserving the state's autonomy in setting its own rules of evidence. This ruling makes it easier for prosecutors in Nevada to introduce damaging co-conspirator statements, as they only need to show 'slight evidence' of a conspiracy's existence to the judge. The decision solidifies a state/federal split on this evidentiary question, impacting how conspiracy cases are prosecuted differently in Nevada's state courts versus federal courts.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: McDowell v. State (1987)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"