Davidson (Lee) v. State

conclude that the district court could determine that the three burglaries evidenced a common scheme or plan and that evidence from the three burglaries would be cross-admissible in separate trials. See id.; see also Graves v. State, 112 Nev. 118, 128,

912 P.2d 234, 240

(1996). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the three burglaries to be joined together. Third, Davidson contends that he was denied his right to confront the witnesses against him under the Confrontation Clause. Specifically, Davidson contends that the district court erred by permitting a…