![]() |
||
Las Vegas |
||
1 of 15 |
||
|
Supreme Court of Nevada. Donald E. PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. No. 42177. Sept. 15, 2005. Philip J. Kohn, Public Defender, and Ralph E. Baker, Howard S. Brooks, and Craig D. Creel, Deputy Public Defenders, Clark County, for Appellant. Brian Sandoval, Attorney General, Carson City; David J. Roger, District Attorney, and James Tufteland, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent. BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC. OPINION By the Court, BECKER, C.J.: In this appeal, we consider the meaning of the terms "libel," "disgrace" and "secret" as used in Nevada's extortion statute, NRS 205.320. We conclude that "libel" refers to the publication of a false statement of fact, "disgrace" means to humiliate or cause loss of favor or standing, and "secret" means a fact that is unfavorable to the interest of a person and unknown to the public and that a person would wish to conceal. Because the district court failed to properly instruct the jury about the elements of extortion, resulting in a verdict based on a legally insufficient theory of culpability, we conclude that the extortion convictions must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. We further conclude that the district court erred in admitting prior bad acts evidence, but this error was harmless as to the remaining counts of aggravated stalking and preventing or dissuading a witness from testifying, and we therefore affirm those convictions. FACTS Between September 2000 and June 2001, Donald E. Phillips sent a number of letters to, and left several voicemail messages for, hotel developer Stephen Wynn, both at Wynn's residence and Wynn's offices. In the letters, Phillips claimed he was Wynn's half-brother and was entitled to half of the money Wynn allegedly inherited from their father. Several of the letters contained threats stating that if Wynn did not comply with his requests, Phillips would reveal their family's story, including accusations of crimes committed by Wynn or his father, to law enforcement authorities and the media. | ||
| |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||