from a judgment of conviction, pursuant-to a jury verdict, of
13 counts of possession of credit or debit card without
cardholder's consent. Eighth Judicial District Court,
Clark County; William D. Kephart, Judge.
J. Kohn, Public Defender, and Tyler C. Gaston and Deborah L.
Westbrook, Deputy Public Defenders, Clark County, for
Paul Laxalt, Attorney General, Carson City; Steven B.
Wolfson, District Attorney, John Thomas Jones, Chief Deputy
District Attorney, and Charles W. Thoman, Deputy District
Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.
SILVER, C.J., TAO and GIBBONS, JJ.
Sayedzada was arrested after a security guard discovered
Sayedzada hiding a woman's purse under his shirt; police
later determined the purse had been stolen. The State charged
Sayedzada with possession of a credit or debit card without
the cardholder's consent. The case went to trial, and
during voir dire, Sayedzada challenged several prospective
jurors for cause. The district court allowed a traverse of
those jurors.before making its ruling. Sayedzada thereafter
renewed his for-cause challenge as to two of the prospective
jurors. The district court denied Sayedzada's challenges
for cause, and Sayedzada used two peremptory challenges to
exclude those two jurors from the jury panel. Sayedzada did
not renew his challenge as to the other two jurors, and they
opinion, we first address whether Sayedzada waived his
appellate argument of juror bias as to the two jurors he
passed for cause below. We thereafter address juror bias and
whether the district court abused its discretion by failing
to strike the two challenged jurors for cause.
first hold that a party waives the right to challenge a
juror's presence on the jury on appeal where the
party's appellate argument is based on facts known to the
party during voir dire; the party consciously elected not to
pursue, or abandoned, a challenge for cause on that basis;
and the party accepted the juror's presence on the jury.
We conclude that in this case, Sayedzada waived his arguments
regarding the empaneled jurors. We thereafter turn to the
issue of juror bias and distinguish between actual. implied,
and inferable bias. We conclude the district court erred by
denying one of Sayedzada's challenges for cause, but this
error is harmless and does not warrant reversal.
attacked a condominium-complex security guard who confronted
him after the guard noticed he was hiding something under his
shirt and acting suspiciously. The guard subdued Sayedzada
and called the police. The guard discovered Sayedzada had a
purse hanging around his neck, which Sayedzada claimed to
have found. The purse contained several credit cards
belonging to a woman and her family. Additional credit cards
were found scattered on the ground where Sayedzada had been
sitting after the guard subdued him. Officers recovered a
total of 13 credit cards. When police contacted the
purse's owner, she told them she was unaware her purse,
which she had left in her unlocked car the night before, had
been stolen. The State charged Sayedzada with 13 counts of
possession of a credit or debit card without the
cardholder's consent, and he pleaded not guilty.
preliminary hearing, Sayedzada indicated that at trial he
would seek to exclude evidence of the purse theft. The State
stated it would not introduce that evidence, but acknowledged
the jury would be able to draw that inference from the facts.
relevant to this appeal, during voir dire, Sayedzada
initially challenged prospective jurors 7, 29, 37, and 38 for
cause. The district court allowed a traverse of the
challenged jurors before making its ruling. After each side
finished questioning the prospective jurors, Sayedzada
renewed his challenges to prospective jurors 29 and 38, but
expressly declined the court's invitation to make further
challenges and did not renew his challenges as to prospective
jurors 7 and 37. The district court denied Sayedzada's
two challenges for cause without explanation, and Sayedzada
used his peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors
29 and 38 from the jury panel. Prospective jurors 7 and 37
were empaneled, and Sayedzada accepted the jury panel without
further objection. The jury convicted Sayedzada on all
charges following a two-day trial. Sayedzada appeals.
contends the district court's denial of his challenges
for cause requires reversal because prospective jurors 7 and
37 were empaneled, which in turn prejudiced his case.
Sayedzada also contends the district court abused its
discretion by denying his challenges for cause to prospective
jurors 29 and 38. We address these points in turn.
of right to challenge jurors 7 and 37 on appeal
argues the empaneled jury was not fair and impartial because
it included jurors 7 and 37, whom he had initially objected
to for cause below. Sayedzada claims these jurors gave
answers during voir dire that indicated they were biased.
When questioned at oral argument as to whether his failure to
maintain an objection below waived the claim, Sayedzada
conceded that he failed to renew his challenge for cause with
respect to these jurors after they were traversed as to bias.
But Sayedzada argued his counsel's actions below are
irrelevant under Blake v. State, which he ...