Tom (Lane) v. State

Moreover, even if the warrant was improperly executed and therefore the challenged evidence should have been suppressed, he has not demonstrated prejudice as the victim's eyewitness testimony, DNA evidence, and video surveillance inculpated him in the offense. See Gallego, 117 Nev. at 365-66, 23 P.3d at 239 (noting that error must normally be prejudicial to affect substantial rights and concluding that substantial rights were not affected when overwhelming evidence supported the district court's finding).

Having considered Tom's contention and concluded that it is without merit, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

42 4.3ta....Acyst.....e J.

Parraguirre

Douglas Cherry cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge Pershing County Public Defender

Attorney General/Carson City

Humboldt County District Attorney

Humboldt County Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 1947A e,