Casinos

FN15. 354 U.S. 298, 77 S.Ct. 1064, 1 L.Ed.2d 1356.

FN16. 992 F.2d 409.

FN17. 502 U.S. 46, 112 S.Ct. 466, 116 L.Ed.2d 371.

Evidence of prior bad acts

Phillips contends that the district court erred in admitting evidence surrounding his prior convictions because they were irrelevant, prejudicial, and too remote in time. The State argues that the evidence was admissible as proof of Phillips' intent, a common scheme or plan, and absence of mistake or accident, and that the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

NRS 48.045(2) states that evidence of other crimes "is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith," but it may be admissible as proof of "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident." In determining whether to admit such evidence, the trial court must conduct a hearing on the matter outside the presence of the jury and on the record. [FN18] Evidence of prior bad acts is only admissible when: (1) the incident is relevant to the crime charged, (2) the act is proven by clear and convincing evidence, and (3) the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. [FN19] The admissibility of prior bad acts evidence under NRS 48.045 is within the discretion of the trial court and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is manifestly wrong. [FN20]

FN18. See Petrocelli, 101 Nev. at 51-52, 692 P.2d at 507-08.

FN19. Tinch v. State, 113 Nev. 1170, 1176, 946 P.2d 1061, 1064-65 (1997).

FN20. Mortensen v. State, 115 Nev. 273, 280, 986 P.2d 1105, 1110 (1999).

Evidence admitted under the "common scheme or plan" exception must relate to the scheme or plan surrounding the defendant's commission of the charged crime. [FN21] Evidence admitted under the "absence of mistake" exception must tend to show the defendant's knowledge of the Wynn Hotel and Casino. [FN22] Finally, "events remote in time from the charged incident have less relevance in proving later intent." [FN23]