Eliason (Jason) v. State

admissibility were met. See Tinch v. State, 113 Nev. 1170, 1176, 946 P.2d 1061, 1064-65 (1997), modified by Bigpond v. State, 128 Nev. „ 270 P.3d 1244, 1249-50 (2012). The district court also agreed to provide the jury with a limiting instruction prior to the admission of the evidence and again before deliberations. See Tavares v. State, 117 Nev. 725, 733, 30 P.3d. 1128, 1133 (2001), modified by Mclellan, 124 Nev. at 270, 182 P.3d at 111. We agree with the State that the evidence in question did not implicate a prior bad act and was admissible independent of NRS 48.045(2) and Tinch, and that a limiting instruction was not required. Therefore, we conclude that the district court reached the right result, albeit for the wrong reason, in granting the State's motion in limine and admitting the knife-possession evidence. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) ("If a judgment or order of a trial court reaches the right result, although it is based on an incorrect ground, the judgment or order will be affirmed on appeal."). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Pickering

—94jtaaajters Saitta Parraguirre cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge

Washoe County Public Defender

Attorney General/Carson City

Washoe County District Attorney

Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 1947A e