opinion testimony regarding the identity of a person depicted in a surveillance video "if there is some basis for concluding that the witness is more likely to correctly identify the defendant from the photograph than is the jury." (internal citations omitted)).

Second, Carter argues that the district court erred by allowing the State to display his booking photo with the word "Guilty" superimposed on his forehead in a PowerPoint presentation during opening statement. Carter claims that his constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty was undermined by the PowerPoint presentation and that reversal is warranted. Carter did not object to the use of the presentation at trial, therefore we review for plain error. NRS 178.602; Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545, 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) ("In conducting plain error review, we must examine whether there was error, whether the error was plain or clear, and whether the error affected the defendant's substantial rights." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We have recently held that the use of a PowerPoint presentation during opening statement that includes a slide of the defendant's booking photo with the word "GUILTY" superimposed across it is error. Watters v. States, 129 Nev. , 313 P.3d 243, 248 (2013).

Here, the State ended its opening statement and accompanying PovverPoint presentation with Carter's booking photo and the word "Guilty" written across his forehead. As we held in Watters, the use of such a slide undermines the presumption of innocence. See id. The State's use of the PowerPoint presentation with the incriminating slide was clear error. Furthermore, we cannot say the error did not affect Carter's substantial rights by causing actual prejudice or a miscarriage of justice. Green, 119 Nev. at 545,80 P.3d at 95; see also Watters, 129 Nev. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I947A at , 313 P.3d at 248-49 ("Mil the presumption-of-innocence context, the actual impact of a particular practice on the judgment of jurors cannot always be fully determined." (internal quotations and alteration omitted)).

Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction REVERSED AND REMAND for a new tria1. 1

A StAA ,J.

Hardesty

J.

Douglas Cherry

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

'Because of our resolution of this appeal, we decline to reach Carter's remaining contentions.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A e10