DIXON v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Dixon claimed that the victim in this matter was the aggressor and there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. In addition, Dixon contended that the trial court erred by admitting expert testimony, the State committed misconduct, and he was denied the right to equal protection. Finally, Dixon requested DNA testing of evidence collected from the crime scene.

We review the district court's denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion. State v. Carroll, 109 Nev. 975, 977, 860 P.2d 179, 180 (1993). Dixon's motion was filed more than eight years after the jury reached its verdict on February 7, 2014. Thus, Dixon's motion was not timely filed. See NRS 176.515(3), (4). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.