Bolden (Jason) v. State ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
JASON J. BOLDEN, A/K/A JASON No. 79715
JEROME BOLEN,
Appellant, FILE
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
AUG 0 4 2022
Respondent. ELIZABETH A. BROWN
CLERK OX SUpREME COURT
ny S
DEPUTY CLERK
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE1
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a
jury verdict, of four counts of attempted murder with the use of a deadly
weapon; one count of ownership or possession of a firearm by a prohibited
person; seven counts of discharging a firearm at or into an occupied
structure, vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft; and one count of battery with the
use of a deadly weapon.2 Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County;
Richard Scotti, Judge.
Appellant first argues that the district court erred in allowing
the State to file an information by affidavit when the State did not provide
an affidavit in support of the motion. Because appellant did not oppose the
'We previously issued an opinion in this matter on July 8, 2021, and
amended that opinion on September 23, 2021. We later granted en banc
reconsideration and withdrew the opinion. Bolden v. State, No. 79715 (Nev.
Feb. 3, 2022) (Order Granting En Banc Reconsideration). We now issue this
order in place of the prior opinion.
2Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument
is not warranted in this appeal.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
19-17A
A?•ALiii3g
motion or otherwise object below, any error was forfeited.3 jerernias v.
State, 134 Nev. 46, 50, 412 P.3d 43, 48 (201.8) (discussing forfeited error).
And we decline to exercise our discretion to consider a forfeited error here.
See id. at 52, 412 P.3d at 49 (recognizing this court's discretion to consi.der
forfeited errors).
Appellant next claims that there was insufficient evidence of
identity because the victim that identified appel.lant as the perpetrator at
trial did not identify appellant at the preliminary hearing. We "view l the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution," to determine
whether, "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements
of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56,
825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 4.43 U.S. 307, 319
(1979)). The victim explained at trial that he lied at the preliminary hearing
because he did not want to aid in the investigation but later decided to "deal
with the situation" after receiving numerous subpoenas. And other
evidence identified appellant as the perpetrator, including a 911 call and
the vi.ctim's photo identification, both made shortly after the shooting. "Mt
is the jury's function, not that of the court, to assess the weight of the
evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses," id., and based on the
evidence presented, we conclude that a rational juror could have found
3And we further conclude that appellant fails to show an error
apparent from a casual inspection of the record that affected his substantial
rights as he was later convicted of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt
following a jury trial. See jerernias v. State, 134. Nev. 46, 50, 412 P.3d 43,
48 (201.8) (discussing plain error review of otherwise forfeited assertions of
error).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(01 1947A
beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was the perpetrator. Based on
the foregoing, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Parr, guirre
/A, J.
Hardesty
Stiglich
6
J.
Cadish
Silver
Herndon
PICKERING, J., concurring:
I concur in the result only.
Pickering
SUPREME COURT
OF
N EVADA
3
tO 1947A
cc: Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court
Department 2, Eighth judicial District Court
Law Office of Benjamin Nadig, Chtd.
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
10) 1947A .06;gtm