Paige (Bryan) v. State ( 2014 )

 Paige responded by firing two additional shots, hitting the victim in the
abdomen.
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), see
also Harkins v. State, 122 Nev. 974, 990, 143 P.3d 706, 716 (2006) ("self-
defense is not available to an original aggressor"), 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 0.060; NRS 193.165(6)(a); NRS 200.481(a). Therefore, we conclude
that Paige's contention is without merit.
Second, Paige contends that the district court erred by
rejecting his proposed jury instruction offered pursuant to NRS 171.126
regarding an arrest by a private person. We disagree. "This court reviews
a district court's decision to issue or not to issue a particular jury
instruction for an abuse of discretion." Ouanbengboune v. State, 125 Nev.
763, 774, 220 P.3d 1122, 1129 (2009). Here, the district court heard
arguments from counsel and determined that Paige was not entitled to the
instruction because "there's no evidence he was making a citizen arrest.
He didn't say that. He wanted to undo the deal." Defense counsel
conceded the point, stating, It] here's no evidence" that Paige attempted to
arrest the victim prior to shooting him. We agree and conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Paige's proposed
instruction.
Third, Paige contends that the district court erred by denying
his pretrial habeas petition based on the claim that the State acted with
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A 34P7:0
9,
conscious indifference to his procedural rights by moving for a second
continuance prior to his preliminary examination without a demonstration
of good cause. See NRS 171.196(2) ("If the defendant does not waive
examination, the magistrate shall hear the evidence within 15 days,
unless for good cause shown the magistrate extends such time."). We
disagree with Paige's contention.
We review a district court's determination regarding a pretrial
habeas petition for substantial error. Sheriff v. Shade, 109 Nev. 826, 828,
858 P.2d 840, 841 (1993). A district court's determination regarding
conscious indifference is a determination of fact, State v. Lamb, 97 Nev.
609, 611, 637 P.2d 1201, 1202 (1981), which will not be disturbed on
appeal so long as substantial evidence in the record supports that
determination, Sheriff v. Roylance, 110 Nev. 334, 337, 871 P.2d 359, 361
(1994). Here, the district court denied Paige's habeas petition after
finding, among other things, that the State complied with the
requirements of Bustos v. Sheriff Clark County, 87 Nev. 622, 624, 491
P.2d 1279, 1280-81 (1971), and presented testimony at the hearing on the
motion "sufficient" to demonstrate good cause. We agree and conclude
that the district court did not err by denying Paige's pretrial habeas
petition. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
J.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A
cc: Hon. Nancy L. Porter, District Judge
Gary D. Woodbury
Attorney General/Carson City
Elko County District Attorney
Elko County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A oklirOP