Szluha (Michael) v. State ( 2015 )

 sleeping. Appellant filmed his acts, and one video showed appellant
penetrating the victim's vagina. The victim testified that the acts were
committed against her will, and although she sometimes woke up during
the acts, she did not resist because she was scared and did not want to lose
her best friend. It is for the jury to determine the weight and credibility to
give testimony, and the jury's verdict will not be disturbed on appeal
where, as here, it is supported by sufficient evidence. See Bolden v. State,
97 Nev. 71, 73, 624 P.2d 20, 20 (1981); see also McNair v. State, 108 Nev.
53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992).
Second, appellant challenges his convictions for lewdness with
a child under the age of fourteen. First, appellant seems to argue that
insufficient evidence supports these convictions because no one individual
act gratified his lust, passions, or desires. We reject this argument given
the evidence presented at trial. Second, appellant argues that he was
punished multiple times for one act in violation of the Double Jeopardy
Clause. However, appellant fails to explain which convictions constitute
multiple punishments for the same action. Because he does not support
his Double Jeopardy claim with cogent argument, we decline to consider it.
See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987).
Third, appellant contends that the State committed
misconduct by questioning the victim's mother regarding her husband's
custody status, which the defense had attempted to discover before trial,
but the district court deemed irrelevant. Appellant fails to demonstrate
that this questioning constitutes misconduct under the circumstances, as
it appears the State was offering the evidence for a different, relevant
purpose than that indicated by the defense, which was to rebut appellant's
contention that the victim visited appellant's home because she wanted to
SUPREME COURT
OP
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A .411t977
engage in sex with him See Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1188, 196
P.3d 465, 476 (2008). Regardless, the district court prohibited the State
from referring to the witness' answer and ordered the State to turn over
the information it possessed regarding the issue. And given the
overwhelming evidence presented at trial, which included videos and
photographs documenting appellant's acts and his own admissions,
appellant fails to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by any misconduct.
Having concluded that appellant's contentions lack merit,' we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
, C.J.
Hardesty
-91/Jta‘r
Parraguirre
J.
Avs J.
Douglas
cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge
Law Office of Betsy Allen
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
'Appellant also contends that cumulative error warrants relief.
Because we have found no error, there are no errors to cumulate.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A