COOPER v. STATE (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

On appeal, Cooper argues the district court erred by admitting other act evidence at trial, specifically: (1) the destruction and theft of cameras at two locations that were not included in the charges against Cooper; (2) the circumstances surrounding Cooper's arrest and the drug paraphernalia found in his hotel room; and (3) Cooper's use of controlled substances. Cooper also argues the cumulative error of admitting these uncharged acts entitle him to relief.

Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine to admit the other act evidence identified above. Cooper filed a response in which he agreed that the other act evidence was admissible but requested limiting instructions be given. Based on the State's motion and Cooper's agreement that the evidence was admissible, the district court admitted the evidence at trial with instructions.

Given Cooper's agreement to the admission of the other act evidence, we conclude Cooper is not entitled to appellate relief based on waiver. See Ford v. State, 122 Nev. 796, 805, 138 P.3d 500, 506 (2006) (recognizing that a waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right); see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993) (explaining that “waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right,” and that waiver of a right extinguishes any error under the federal rules and precludes appellate relief (internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, we decline to consider Cooper's claims on appeal, and we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.