Anderson (Davis) v. State ( 2014 )

 We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution and determine whether "any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."
Jackson ix Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (emphasis omitted); Mitchell
v. State, 124 Nev. 807, 816, 192 P.3d 721, 727 (2008). "NRS 205.090
provides, among other things, that any person who (1) passes or attempts
to pass, as true and genuine, a forged or false instrument, (2) knowing it to
be forged or false, (3) with intent to defraud, is guilty of forgery." Patin v.
Sheriff, Clark Cnty., 92 Nev. 673, 674, 557 P.2d 708, 708 (1976).
The jury heard testimony that Anderson admitted to Police
Officer Mario Perez, Jr., that he knew that the checks were bad and that
they were going to cash them. Valeria Gonzalez testified that she,
Anderson, and an unidentified male met with a third unidentified male.
The third male handed Anderson a stack of papers and told him "[t]hat he
would be able to cash the checks at a Walmart, this stack, and then
tomorrow he would be good to cash the others." 2 They then traveled to the
Bighorn Casino, where Anderson handed her a check and told her to cash
it. Gonzales saw her name and address on the check, but she did not
recognize the name of the company that was identified as the drawee. She
knew that it was not her check and that she would not be able to cash it
because she did not work for that company And, when she attempted to
cash the check, she was detained by security guards. The guards called
the police and stated that they had placed a female in custody for trying to
2 The record indicates that this statement was admitted pursuant to
NRS 51.035(3)(e) (a statement offered against a party that was made by a
coconspirator of the party during the course and in furtherance of a
conspiracy is not hearsay).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
cash a bad check. The police impounded the check and it was later
admitted into evidence.
We conclude that a rational juror could reasonably infer from
this evidence that the check Anderson attempted to pass was a forged or
false instrument. See NRS 205.090; NRS 205.110; see also Doyle v. State,
112 Nev. 879, 892, 921 P.2d 901, 910(1996) (describing the independent
proof necessary to satisfy the corpus delicti rule), overruled on other
grounds by Kaczmarek v. State, 120 Nev. 314, 333, 91 P.3d 16, 29 (2004).
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). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
&vitae
Pickering
J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge
Michael H. Schwarz
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e