Wilson (Kyle) v. State ( 2015 )

 that she give him money. She testified that she told him that there might
be something of interest in the master bedroom and that Wilson told her
to take him there. She testified that, once there, she opened a drawer and
Wilson began to hit her on the head, face, arms, and chest. Photographs of
her injuries were admitted as exhibits at trial. Recordings of Wilson's jail
calls were played for the jury, in which Wilson admitted that he
unlawfully entered the house to rob it and asserted that he beat the victim
to get more time to escape.
The jury could reasonably infer from the evidence presented
that Wilson battered the victim with the intent of obtaining possession of
property, preventing or overcoming resistance to his taking such property,
or facilitating escape. See NRS 200.380(1), 200.400(1)(a); see Norman v.
Sheriff, 92 Nev. 695, 697, 558 P.2d 541, 542 (1976) (holding that a charge
for robbery was justified where the acts of violence preceded the taking
(and which may have been intended for a different purpose), noting that
matters immediately antecedent and directly causally connected may be
deemed so closely connected as to form part of the occurrence). It is for the
jury to determine the weight and credibility to give conflicting testimony,
and the jury's verdict will not be disturbed on appeal where, as here,
substantial evidence supports the verdict. 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).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1907A 4:641.
Having considered Wilson's contention and concluded that it is
without merit, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.'
S
Hardesty
et_a , C.J.
,J. J.
Douglas
cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge
Clark County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
'In spite of this court's order to do so, Wilson's counsel has failed to
brief the issue posed by Blockb urger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932).
Accordingly, the double-jeopardy issue has been waived. See LaChance v.
State, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 29, 321 P.3d 919, 926 n.3 (2014).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947.4 oe