McKee v. State
917 P.2d 940, 112 Nev. 642, 1996 Nev. LEXIS 90 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A non-owner driver present with the vehicle's owner generally lacks standing to challenge a vehicle search, but prosecutorial misconduct involving the withholding of evidence and improper impeachment with extrinsic evidence on a collateral matter can constitute material prejudice requiring a new trial.
Facts:
- In July 1994, Rockwood Lee McKee, a carpenter living in Las Vegas, agreed to drive Verna Lovely, a former client, to Boise, Idaho, in Lovely's car, in exchange for a flight to Los Angeles and money for his truck.
- After arriving in Los Angeles, McKee purchased methamphetamine to stay awake during the trip, hiding it in his sock.
- At about 1:00 a.m. on July 13, 1994, McKee and Lovely began their trip; Lovely drove first but McKee took over driving when she became fatigued near Reno.
- Later that day, around 9:00 p.m., Nevada Highway Patrol Trooper Charles Stamey observed Lovely's car, driven by McKee, speeding near Winnemucca, Nevada, and initiated a stop.
- During the stop, Trooper Stamey observed suspicious items in the car and noted discrepancies between McKee's and Lovely's accounts of their trip, and Lovely could not produce her driver's license or registration.
- McKee denied possessing large amounts of currency or drugs and refused a search of his bag, and Lovely, the car owner, also refused to consent to a search of her car.
- Trooper Stamey, believing he had probable cause, searched Lovely's car anyway, finding a loaded 9mm pistol, 451.27 grams of methamphetamine, scales, and marijuana; he also found 0.83 grams of methamphetamine in McKee's sock during a search of his person.
- Several days before the trial, police discovered a camera in Lovely’s vehicle, and developed film produced a photograph dated July 12, 1994, showing McKee in possession of drugs, which the prosecution withheld from McKee's defense despite an "open file policy."
Procedural Posture:
- A jury trial was held on September 21, 22, and 23, 1994.
- The jury found Rockwood Lee McKee guilty of one count of trafficking in a controlled substance-level III and one count of possession of a controlled substance.
- On January 11, 1995, the district court sentenced McKee to prison and a fine for the convictions.
- On January 27, 1995, McKee filed a timely notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Nevada, with McKee as the appellant and the State as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the prosecutor's withholding of incriminating evidence under an "open file policy" and subsequent improper impeachment of the defendant with extrinsic evidence on a collateral matter constitute prejudicial misconduct warranting a new trial, even if the defendant lacked standing to challenge the vehicle search?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the prosecutor's actions constituted prejudicial misconduct, requiring the reversal of McKee's conviction and a remand for a new trial, despite McKee lacking standing to challenge the vehicle search. The court held that McKee lacked standing to object to Trooper Stamey's search of Lovely's vehicle because he was merely a non-owner driver, and Lovely, the owner, was present in the vehicle and had not relinquished her possessory interest (citing Rakas v. Illinois and United States v. Jefferson). Therefore, McKee had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle. However, the court found two instances of prosecutorial misconduct. First, the district court erred by allowing the prosecutor to impeach McKee's credibility with the photograph of him possessing drugs on July 12, 1994. This was extrinsic evidence relating to a collateral matter (whether he used drugs days before his arrest, unrelated to the trafficking charge), which is prohibited by NRS 50.085(3). Under this rule, while specific instances of conduct can be inquired into on cross-examination, they cannot be proven by extrinsic evidence if denied. Second, the prosecution's withholding of this photograph, despite the Humboldt County District Attorney's "open file policy," constituted an act of deception. The court reasoned that it was reasonable for McKee's counsel to rely on this policy for discovery of all relevant evidence. This act was deemed clearly unfair and extremely prejudicial to McKee’s defense, violating the high ethical standards required of prosecutors (citing Bruno v. Rushen). The court concluded that these acts of misconduct, taken together, were not harmless and materially prejudiced McKee’s defense, thus requiring a new trial.
Analysis:
This case underscores the paramount importance of prosecutorial ethical conduct and adherence to discovery obligations, especially when an "open file policy" is in place, as violations can lead to a reversal of conviction even in the presence of strong evidence. It reinforces the limitations on impeachment, prohibiting the use of extrinsic evidence on collateral matters to attack a witness's credibility. Furthermore, the decision clarifies that a non-owner driver, where the vehicle's owner is also present, generally does not possess the requisite expectation of privacy to challenge a vehicle search under the Fourth Amendment, providing a clear precedent for standing in such circumstances.
