Misheard Confession, Independent Probable Cause, and Ligature Strangulation as a Deadly Weapon: Roginsky v. State (Nev. 2025)

Introduction

In Roginsky (Robert) v. State, No. 89006 (Nev. Sept. 12, 2025), the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed a Clark County jury’s verdict finding Alan (Robert) Roginsky guilty of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon. The appeal raised four principal issues: (1) whether the district court erred in denying a motion to suppress and a request for a hearing under Franks v. Delaware where a warrant affidavit included a misheard statement that transformed “He f—ing strangled her” into “I f—ing strangled her,” and also referenced statements later suppressed as involuntary; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the deadly-weapon enhancement based on ligature strangulation; (3) whether the State’s failure to timely secure surveillance video warranted dismissal or an adverse inference instruction under Nevada’s duty-to-collect-evidence doctrine; and (4) whether denial of a defense motion to continue trial for additional cell phone forensics was an abuse of discretion. The court also rejected a cumulative-error claim.

Judge Carli Lynn Kierny presided over the trial in the Eighth Judicial District Court. The Supreme Court’s order was issued by Justices Pickering, Cadish, and Lee, who unanimously affirmed.

Summary of the Opinion

The court held:

No Franks hearing or suppression was warranted. Even excising the misheard “confession” and the defendant’s later-suppressed, impairment-tainted statements, the remaining facts in the warrant affidavit independently established probable cause.
Sufficient evidence supported the deadly-weapon enhancement. A green latex tourniquet under the victim’s body bearing the defendant’s DNA, together with autopsy findings consistent with ligature use, permitted a rational jury to find use of a deadly weapon, even if the ultimate mechanism of death included manual strangulation.
No plain error in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing or dismiss for failure to collect evidence. The defendant did not preserve the request after a cancelled status check and, in any event, failed to show materiality of the overwritten surveillance video under Daniels v. State.
No abuse of discretion in denying a continuance. The defense did not demonstrate prejudice or a non-speculative likelihood that further digital forensics on damaged cell phones would yield exculpatory evidence, particularly given the case’s age and prior continuances.
With no individual error, the cumulative-error claim failed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978): Establishes that a defendant is entitled to a hearing if they make a substantial preliminary showing (1) that the affidavit contains a knowingly false or recklessly false statement, and (2) that the falsehood is necessary to probable cause. The court applied the second prong, concluding that even without the misheard statement and other tainted statements, probable cause persisted; therefore, no hearing was required.
State v. Beckman, 129 Nev. 481, 305 P.3d 912 (2013) and Somee v. State, 124 Nev. 434, 187 P.3d 152 (2008): Confirm the mixed standard of review for suppression rulings—clear error for historical facts and de novo for legal conclusions—guiding the court’s review of the suppression/Franks issues.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) and Origel-Candido v. State, 114 Nev. 378, 956 P.2d 1378 (1998): Provide the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard—whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State. These cases underpinned approval of the deadly-weapon finding.
McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 825 P.2d 571 (1992) and Allen v. State, 99 Nev. 485, 665 P.2d 238 (1983): Emphasize jury primacy in assessing witness credibility and weighing conflicting testimony, foreclosing appellate reweighing of the defense narrative.
State v. Dunchkhiurst, 99 Nev. 696, 669 P.2d 243 (1983): Supports enhancing a homicide with a deadly weapon even where the weapon was not the immediate cause of death, so long as it was used in the fatal episode (e.g., superficial knife wounds in a stabbing case). The court analogized to ligature use here.
Daniels v. State, 114 Nev. 261, 956 P.2d 111 (1998): Articulates Nevada’s two-part duty-to-collect-evidence test: the defendant must show (1) the missing evidence was material, and (2) bad faith or negligence by the State. The court stopped at materiality, finding speculation about the overwritten surveillance insufficient.
Martinorellan v. State, 131 Nev. 43, 343 P.3d 590 (2015): Governs plain error—error must be unmistakable on casual inspection when an issue was not preserved. Applied because the defense did not re-raise its hearing request after a canceled status check.
Rose v. State, 123 Nev. 194, 163 P.3d 408 (2007) and Higgs v. State, 126 Nev. 1, 222 P.3d 648 (2010): Supply the abuse-of-discretion and prejudice standards for continuances; the court found neither abuse nor prejudice based on the speculative value of further phone forensics.
Byford v. State, 116 Nev. 215, 994 P.2d 700 (2000): Provides the cumulative-error framework; it did not apply because there were no individual errors.

Legal Reasoning by Issue

1) Franks Hearing and Motion to Suppress

The warrant affidavit included two problematic features: officers initially believed they heard the defendant say “I f—ing strangled her,” which later proved (via bodycam) to be “He f—ing strangled her,” and the affidavit referenced statements the defendant made while narcotically impaired, which the district court later suppressed as involuntary and unknowing.

The Supreme Court resolved the issue under Franks’s materiality prong: if, after setting aside the challenged statements, the remaining affidavit establishes probable cause, no hearing is warranted. Excising the misheard confession and the impaired statements, the affidavit still contained:

A concerned friend’s report of alarming messages from the defendant about an attack and hostage scenario;
Neighbors’ reports of a woman’s scream from the apartment;
The defendant’s failure to respond to repeated police knocks and announcements;
Forced entry revealing the victim dead in the hallway and the defendant present inside.

Those facts independently furnished probable cause to search the residence, vehicles, and phones for evidence of the homicide. Because the misheard statement was not “necessary to the finding of probable cause,” the second Franks prong failed, and the district court properly denied both a Franks hearing and suppression.

Notably, the court did not reach the first Franks prong (intentional or reckless falsity) because materiality was dispositive. The practical upshot is a reaffirmation: the legal validity of a warrant turns on the affidavit’s excised content, not on an officer’s subjective motivation in seeking the warrant or the initial inclusion of tainted remarks. Prosecutors and affiants should still exercise caution—particularly with audio transcriptions—but independent probable cause will salvage a warrant even where a purported confession is misheard or later-suppressed statements were referenced.

2) Sufficiency of the Evidence: Use of a Deadly Weapon (Ligature)

The defendant argued that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a ligature was used to strangle the victim. Applying Jackson v. Virginia, the court canvassed:

Photographs showing a green latex tourniquet under the victim’s body;
Forensic evidence of the defendant’s DNA on that tourniquet;
Medical testimony describing fingernail injuries to the chin and lip, parallel abrasions, and neck hemorrhage consistent with ligature strangulation.

From this, a rational jury could find that a ligature was used at some point in the violent episode, even if the fatal mechanism could also have included manual strangulation. Citing State v. Dunchkhiurst, the court reiterated that Nevada’s deadly-weapon enhancement may apply if a weapon is used during the commission of the homicide, regardless of whether it caused the precise fatal injury. Flexible objects used to restrict airflow are “deadly weapons” under Nevada law when used in a manner readily capable of causing death or substantial bodily harm. The district court did not err by allowing the jury to decide the enhancement.

3) Failure to Collect Surveillance Video: Request for Dismissal/Adverse Inference

The defense contended police negligently failed to secure surveillance footage before it overwrote, warranting dismissal or, alternatively, an adverse inference instruction. Procedurally, the claim was reviewed for plain error because the evidentiary-hearing request—initially slated for a status check—was not reasserted after that hearing was cancelled.

Substantively, the court applied Daniels v. State’s two-part test and stopped at the first step: materiality. The defendant offered no non-speculative basis to believe the video would have captured exculpatory events or undermined the State’s theory. Absent a “reasonable probability” that the evidence would have altered the outcome, dismissal (or even an adverse inference instruction) was unwarranted, and there was no plain error in the district court’s handling of the issue.

The decision underscores that speculation about missing digital evidence will not satisfy materiality, and that litigants must preserve requests for evidentiary hearings despite docket disruptions.

4) Denial of Continuance for Further Phone Forensics

The defense sought a continuance to repair and extract data (recordings, texts, location history, photos) from impounded, damaged phones. The district court denied the motion given the case’s age, prior defense continuances, uncertain feasibility of extraction, and lack of a concrete timeline or method.

On appeal, the Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion because the defendant failed to show prejudice—i.e., a specific, non-speculative likelihood that the additional time would yield admissible, favorable evidence. General assertions that “the data might help” did not suffice under Rose and Higgs. The ruling reflects Nevada courts’ growing insistence on concrete proffers in digital-forensics continuance requests.

5) Cumulative Error

With no individual errors found, the court rejected cumulative error under Byford.

Impact and Practical Significance

A. Affidavits with Misheard or Tainted Statements: Franks Materiality Reaffirmed

Roginsky clarifies the materiality inquiry under Franks in a modern, bodycam-recorded context: a misheard confession (“I” vs. “He”) and references to involuntary statements do not trigger a Franks hearing if the remaining affidavit independently establishes probable cause. This reinforces best practices for prosecutors and affiants:

Build redundancy—include multiple, corroborated facts supporting probable cause.
When accuracy issues arise (e.g., audio quality), promptly verify with recordings or transcripts where feasible.
If tainted content is later identified, be prepared to defend the warrant by excision and independent probable cause.

For defense counsel, Roginsky highlights the need to marshal a record demonstrating that the challenged statement was essential to probable cause; merely showing it was present (or motivational) is not enough.

B. Ligature Strangulation and the Deadly-Weapon Enhancement

The decision strengthens the evidentiary framework for applying the deadly-weapon enhancement in strangulation homicides:

Medical indicators (parallel abrasion lines; subcutaneous/neck hemorrhage) plus physical evidence (e.g., a tourniquet with the defendant’s DNA) can establish the use of a ligature.
Under Dunchkhiurst, enhancement attaches if the weapon was “used” during the lethal encounter, even if not the direct cause of death. This will likely influence charging and jury-instruction strategies in homicide cases involving mixed mechanisms (manual and ligature strangulation).

C. Lost Digital Evidence: Materiality and Preservation

The court’s application of Daniels and Martinorellan sends two messages:

Materiality requires more than conjecture that a lost video “might” have helped; a reasonable probability of outcome change must be articulated with specificity.
Preservation matters. Failing to re-press a request after a procedural hiccup (e.g., a cancelled status check) can relegate a claim to plain-error review.

Law enforcement should document reasonable efforts to secure time-sensitive recordings. Defense teams should proactively issue preservation letters/subpoenas and make clear, repeated record requests to preserve appellate review.

D. Continuances for Digital Forensics: Specificity and Prejudice

Nevada trial courts retain broad discretion to manage congested dockets and aging cases. Roginsky confirms that continuances for further digital forensics require:

Concrete plans (identified lab, technique, timeline) for extraction or repair;
Non-speculative proffers of how the resulting data would be admissible and favorable;
Some showing that prior delays were not within the movant’s control and that diligence has been exercised.

Absent these, appellate courts will usually find no prejudice and uphold denial of continuances.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Franks hearing: A special evidentiary hearing to challenge the truthfulness of statements in a search-warrant affidavit. To get one, a defendant must show (1) a knowingly false or recklessly false statement was included, and (2) the statement was necessary to establish probable cause. If probable cause remains after removing the false statement, no hearing is granted.
Probable cause (for a warrant): A fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched, based on the totality of the circumstances described in the affidavit.
Deadly-weapon enhancement: Nevada increases penalties when a crime is committed with a deadly weapon—any instrument used in a manner capable of causing substantial bodily harm or death, which can include a ligature.
Sufficiency of the evidence: On appeal, the question is not whether the appellate court believes the evidence; it asks whether any rational juror could have found the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence most favorably to the prosecution.
Duty to collect evidence (Daniels): Police generally need not collect every piece of possible evidence, but a case may be dismissed if the defendant shows (1) the uncollected evidence was material—reasonably likely to change the outcome—and (2) the failure to collect it was negligent or in bad faith.
Plain error: A high bar applied when an issue was not preserved in the trial court; the error must be obvious and affect substantial rights.
Continuance: A request to delay trial. Nevada courts require a showing of good cause and, on appeal, prejudice from any denial. Speculation about potential evidence is not enough.

Conclusion

Roginsky v. State is a careful, fact-grounded affirmance that crystallizes several practical rules across criminal procedure and evidence:

Under Franks, misheard or otherwise tainted statements in a warrant affidavit do not mandate a hearing or suppression if independent, excised facts still establish probable cause.
Ligature strangulation supports a deadly-weapon enhancement where medical and physical evidence indicate its use, even if death ensued by combined mechanisms.
Claims of failure to collect evidence demand specific showings of materiality; speculative assertions and lapses in preservation will not be rewarded.
Continuances for digital forensics hinge on concrete, non-speculative showings of likely, favorable returns and demonstrable diligence.

While the opinion does not announce sweeping new doctrine, it meaningfully clarifies and applies existing standards to contemporary investigative contexts—body-worn cameras, digital evidence, and mixed-mechanism homicides—offering a roadmap for trial courts, investigators, and litigants alike. The judgment of conviction was accordingly affirmed.