In denying appellant’s motion for a mistrial, the Court held that (1) to prove prosecutorial misconduct, an appellant must show that a prosecutor’s statements resulted in a denial of due process; and (2) to prove juror misconduct, an appellant must show that misconduct occurred and that the misconduct was prejudicial. The Court also clarified Bowman v. State’s applicability by stating that when juror misconduct occurs before the verdict, and defense counsel is aware of the misconduct, it is defense counsel’s responsibility to request an investigation regarding prejudice. Finally, the Court defined the scope of Gonzalez v. State by stating that a district court does not abuse its discretion when it refuses to provide further instructions if neither party offers a clarifying answer.
Cummings, Hayley, "Jeffries v. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 47 (July 6, 2017)" (2017). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1064.