KEVIN DICKSON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
Dickson v. State
KEVIN DICKSON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
KEVIN DICKSON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
No. 20972
January 2, 1992
822 P.2d 1122
Hager & Mausert and Gordon E. Logan, Reno, for Appellant.
Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, Carson City; Keith Loomis, District Attorney and Robert Estes, Deputy District Attorney, Lyon County, for Respondent.
OPINION
Per Curiam:
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of one count of possession of a controlled substance. NRS 453.336. The district court sentenced appellant to eighteen months in the Nevada State Prison.
On April 26, 1989, Deputy Sheriff Jeroen Wynands went to a trailer with two other deputies for the purpose of arresting appellant on an outstanding warrant. Officer Wynands knocked on the door of the trailer, and appellant opened the door. Appellant gave a false name to the deputies and falsely stated that the man they were looking for was not at the trailer. Appellant consented to a search of the trailer. The deputies located a woman inside the trailer who correctly identified appellant as "Kevin." Appellant initially denied having any identification, but when Officer Wynands noticed a wallet in appellant's pants, appellant admitted that he was Kevin Dickson. Officer Wynands placed appellant under arrest, and proceeded with a "pat down" search. As a result of that search, Officer Wynands found a small plastic tube (a plastic pen barrel) in appellant's pocket. Based on his training, Officer Wynands believed that the plastic tube was of the type typically used to inhale controlled substances into the nose. Appellant did not exhibit any symptoms of being under the influence of methamphetamine.
The owner of the trailer was John Montagano. In March of 1989, John's son Jeff had been arrested on a drug charge at the very trailer where appellant was found. Jeff lived in the trailer for about eight months in 1988 and 1989. Jeff had drug paraphernalia at the trailer which included five or six pen barrels that Jeff had broken or cut in half to use for ingesting methamphetamine. Jeff identified the plastic tube as a pen barrel that he had modified for the ingestion of methamphetamine.
Richard A. Smith, a criminalist for the Washoe County Sheriff's Department, washed the plastic tube with a dilute solution of sulfuric acid. An infrared test on the solution indicated the presence of less than one one-hundredth of a gram of methamphetamine.
Appellant testified that on the day he was arrested he had been cleaning the trailer and had picked up the pen barrel along with some loose change and screws so they would not be sucked up in the vacuum cleaner.
As appellant was transported to the courthouse, at least one of the prospective jurors saw him in chains. This fact was brought out during the district court's examination of the prospective jurors, and was discussed in front of all of the prospective jurors. The prospective jurors were admonished not to allow the incident to affect them. Counsel for appellant made further inquiry of the jury regarding this incident and two jurors indicated that they felt sorry for appellant because he had been brought to court in chains. One juror indicated that it would be "hard" to weigh the evidence fairly because of this incident. Both sides passed the jury for cause. Because the jurors answering questions are not identified in the transcript, it is not possible to determine from the record whether any juror who saw appellant in chains was excused as a result of a peremptory challenge. Appellant's motion for a mistrial was denied.
Appellant contends, and the state concedes, that it was error to allow the jury to see appellant in chains. We agree. "A criminal defendant clearly has the right . to appear before his jurors clad in the apparel of an innocent person." Grooms v. State, 96 Nev. 142, 144, 605 P.2d 1145, 1146 (1980) (citations omitted); see, generally, Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (the sight of shackles might have a significant effect on the jury's feelings about the defendant, and requiring a defendant to appear in shackles could have an impact on the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights).
The state argues, however, that the error was harmless. When an error in a trial infringes on a defendant's constitutional rights, the error may be deemed harmless only if the appellate tribunal is "able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967).
Based on our review of the record on appeal, we cannot conclude that the error in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. While the dissent cites cases from other jurisdictions, we are bound to follow the law in Nevada. In Grooms, which governs this type of case, this court was willing to conclude that the error was harmless based on a review of the entire record. In the instant case, however, the error is more egregious, and the case against appellant closer, than in Grooms.
First, all of the jurors were informed that appellant was seen by at least one juror in chains. While not all of the jurors actually saw appellant in chains, the incident was discussed at length in front of all the jurors in voir dire. As noted above, at least one juror indicated that it would be "hard" to weigh the evidence fairly because of this incident. Other jurors indicated that they felt sympathy for appellant because of seeing him in chains. Accordingly, we cannot say that seeing appellant in chains had no effect on the jury.
Further, we note that the evidence against appellant was extremely close. The amount of methamphetamine found in the pen barrel was minuscule. At oral argument, the state conceded that it would have been impossible for anyone without scientific equipment to have known that there was methamphetamine inside the pen barrel. The pen barrel was admittedly the property of Montagano, a known drug user. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction.
In light of our disposition of this appeal, we decline to consider appellant's contention that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict.