Monroe (Anthony) v. State ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                 them, wrestled with the asset protection specialist, and "tried to make
    physical contact with [the assistant store manager] by trying to swing at
    him." The asset protection specialist testified that prior to the
    confrontation, she verbally identified herself to Monroe as "Home Depot
    security" and while doing so "might have touched his hand." Surveillance
    videotape of the incident was played for the jury.
    Circumstantial evidence alone may sustain a conviction.
    Buchanan v. State, 
    119 Nev. 201
    , 217, 
    69 P.3d 694
    , 705 (2003). It is for
    the jury to determine the weight and credibility to give conflicting
    testimony, McNair v. State, 
    108 Nev. 53
    , 56, 
    825 P.2d 571
    , 573 (1992), and
    a jury's verdict will not be disturbed on appeal where, as here, sufficient
    evidence supports the verdict, Bolden v. State, 
    97 Nev. 71
    , 73, 
    624 P.2d 20
    ,
    20 (1981); see also NRS 200.380(1). Therefore, we conclude that Monroe's
    contention is without merit.
    Second, Monroe contends that the district court erred by
    rejecting his proposed jury instruction defining "larceny." Monroe fails to
    offer any cogent argument or legal authority in support of his claim and
    we need not address it. See Maresca v. State, 
    103 Nev. 669
    , 673, 
    748 P.2d 3
    , 6 (1987). Nevertheless, we note that the State met its burden of proof
    on the greater offense of robbery and Monroe's contention is without merit.
    See Lisby v. State, 
    82 Nev. 183
    , 188, 
    414 P.2d 592
    , 595 (1966) (holding that
    "if the prosecution has met its burden of proof on the greater offense and
    there is no evidence at the trial tending to reduce the greater offense, an
    instruction on a lesser included offense may properly be refused"); see also
    Davis v. State, 
    110 Nev. 1107
    , 1115, 
    881 P.2d 657
    , 662 (1994). Therefore,
    we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A
    Monroe's proposed instruction.     See Ouanbengboune v. State, 
    125 Nev. 763
    , 774, 
    220 P.3d 1122
    , 1129 (2009). Accordingly, we
    ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
    Hardesty
    Parraguirre                               Cherry
    cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge
    Janet S. Bessemer
    Michael V. Roth
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Washoe County District Attorney
    Washoe District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A     •,s
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 62157

Filed Date: 6/12/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021