Watters v. State
129 Nev. 886
| Nev. | 2013Background
- Watters was charged with possession of a stolen vehicle, grand larceny of a vehicle, and failure to stop on an officer’s signal, tied to a car-theft spree and arrest after a dog bite.
- At trial, the State used a PowerPoint opening that displayed Watters’s booking photo with the word “GUILTY” across it.
- Defense objected to the booking-photo slide sequence before opening statements; the objection was overruled.
- The district court and Watters’s counsel advised that such slides are common, but the court allowed them to remain as presented.
- The court ultimately held that the booking-photo slide sequence was an error that undermined the presumption of innocence and required reversal for a new trial; the verdict was otherwise supported by sufficient evidence; other issues were not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does displaying a booking photo with a “GUILTY” label in opening violate presumption of innocence | State argues PowerPoint is permissible if within opening scope | Watters argues it improperly conveys guilt visually | Yes, it violated the presumption of innocence and was reversible error |
| Is the error harmless under Chapman standard | Error was harmless because slides weren't admitted and guilt was overwhelming | Error tainted the jury's view; not harmless | Not harmless; reversal and remand for new trial |
| Was the evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict apart from the booking-photo issue | Evidence supported guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Evidence insufficient if prejudiced by improper opening | Evidence sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt after viewing in the light most favorable to State |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600 (1976) (opening statements; purpose and limits of opening statements; not argument)
- Garner v. State, 78 Nev. 366 (1962) (opening statements; purpose of opening; limits on argument)
- Hightower v. State, 123 Nev. 55 (2007) (presumption of innocence; fundamental trial right)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976) (presumption of innocence and fair trial rights)
- Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (1986) (jurisdictional scope of fair trial rights in context of trial proceedings)
- Glasmann, 286 P.3d 673 (Wash. 2012) (PowerPoint with defendant’s booking photo and captions; improper expression of guilt)
- Dolphy v. State, 707 S.E.2d 56 (Ga. 2011) (curative action for improper opening slides; admissibility considerations)
- Sucharew, 66 P.3d 59 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003) (PowerPoint as slide show of exhibits; not prejudicial or inflammatory under facts)