*20 OPINION
Aguilаr appeals from a conviction of murder in the first degree and a consequent sentence оf life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Five assignments of error are considered and rejeсted; we affirm.
I.
The first assignment of error relates to a comment by the prosecutor at the commеncement of the penalty phase. The prosecutor stated to the jury: “Life in prison in our state is fiftеen years so, if you impose the penalty of life in prison without the possibility of parole, the defendant will serve fifteen years in prison.”
Defense counsel objected on the ground that the prosecutor had incorrectly stated the law. The.court instructed the jury to ignore the statement and advised that thеy would later be properly instructed in the relevant law. The court subsequently instructed the jury regarding the law аpplicable to the appropriate penalties. Since the judge corrected the misstatement, we cannot conclude that the jury was in any way misled. We, therefore, refuse to reversе on this ground.
II.
The second assignment of error concerns reference by a prosecution witness to polygraph tests which were given to other suspects in the case. Aguilar’s defense rested in part on the fact that there had initially been suspects other than himself. On cross-examination of the Lincoln County Sheriff, defense counsel raised the issue of other possible suspects. On redirect examination, the following exchange occurred between the prosecutor and the sheriff:
Q. After investigating all thesе other suspects . . . are you satisfied that they didn’t commit the crime?
A. Yes, I am because of some polygraphs we had run and also ....
Defense counsel objected to the answer, and out of the presеnce of the jury, moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied the motion and admonished the jury to ignore the witnеss’s answer.
*21 Aguilar claims that reversible error was committed by the reference to the polygraphs. He asserts that the effect of the statement was to exonerate other suspects and to crеate the inference either that Aguilar had refused to submit to a polygraph or that he had taken one and failed it.
It is true, as appellant states, that evidence of a polygraph test is admissible in Nеvada only if both parties have signed a written stipulation to that effect. Corbett v. State,
III.
The third assignment of error, also without merit, is that the court erred in refusing to admit evidence of an exculpatory letter written by thе defendant after the crime was committed. The letter was hearsay evidence; it was not offerеd to- rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper motive or influence. See NRS 51.035. Furthermorе, it does not fall within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule. Finally, the evidence is pаrticularly untrustworthy since the motive to lie would already have attached at the time the letter was written.
IV.
The fourth claim of error is that the court incorrectly admitted certain scientific evidence аnd testimony of a forensic odontologist relating to identification of Aguilar’s bite mark on the victim’s body. We rеject this assignment since it was waived by defense counsel at trial. The expert was asked his opinion as to whose bite mark appeared on the victim’s body. He testified *22 without objection that the mark was that of Aguilar’s teeth. Further support for the. expert’s opinion was given in the form of a video tape аdmitted into evidence by stipulation of counsel. The defense cannot be heard now to comрlain that admission of the expert’s “experimental technique” was reversible error.
V.
The final assignment оf error concerns photographic evidence which Aguilar claims was inflamatory and prejudiсial. Photographs show bullet wounds in various parts of the body. The evidence of the wounds is relevant to аt least two issues, the cause of death and also premeditation. The admission of such evidencе resides in the sound discretion of the trial court. Turpen v. State,
The judgment of conviction and the sentence are affirmed.