Patterson (Tomarey) v. State ( 2015 )

 Patterson now argues that the State improperly argued in
closing that because Patterson's son had been seen by a local Pahrump
optometrist after January 10, 2014, Patterson could have taken his son to
see that local optometrist between December 31, 2013, and January 10,
2014. Patterson misstates the State's closing argument, which was that
Patterson could have taken his son to the local optometrist between July
2013 and December 31, 2013. Further, the local optometrist testified at
trial, without objection, that the son's first visit to his office occurred after
Patterson's arrest. The State's argument was thus a permissible comment
on evidence in the record. See Randolph v. State, 117 Nev. 970, 984, 36
P.3d 424, 433 (2001) ("The State is free to comment on testimony, to
express its views on what the evidence shows, and to ask the jury to draw
reasonable inferences from the evidence."). For the foregoing reasons, we
conclude that Patterson's argument is without merit, and we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
J.
Gibbons
&SA a
J.
Pickering
cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge
The Law Firm of Nathan L. Gent, PLLC
Attorney General/Carson City
Nye County District Attorney
Nye County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A e.)