Ballard (Daniel) v. State

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 14, 2015
Docket65750
StatusUnpublished

This text of Ballard (Daniel) v. State (Ballard (Daniel) v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ballard (Daniel) v. State, (Neb. 2015).

Opinion

testimony at trial established that 61 marijuana plants were found growing in common areas of Ballard's family home. Substantial evidence indicated that the marijuana was being sold, including eyewitness •

testimony, an officer's testimony that the amount of marijuana in the home was significantly more than that needed for the family's personal use, 1 and a scale found in Ballard's bedroom. We conclude that the jury could reasonably infer from the evidence presented that Ballard committed the charged crimes. See NRS 453.336(1); NRS 453.401(1). Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, Buchanan v. State, 119 Nev. 201, 217, 69 P.3d 694, 705 (2003), and a jury's verdict will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by sufficient evidence, see Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 73, 624 P.2d 20, 20 (1981); see also McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992). Second, Ballard contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal. Because we have determined that sufficient evidence was presented to support the convictions, we conclude that the district court did not err. See NRS 175.381(2) (providing that the district court may set aside the verdict and

1 Wenote that Ballard offers no cogent argument or legal authority in support of his assertion that he could not be convicted of the crimes because the other members of his family legally possessed the marijuana. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987) ("It is appellant's responsibility to present relevant authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not be addressed by this court.").

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) )947A arem enter a judgment of acquittal if the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction). Having considered Ballard's contentions and concluded that no relief is warranted, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

J. Parraguirre

J. CLUL Cherry

cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge Sandra L. Stewart Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) I947A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bolden v. State
624 P.2d 20 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1981)
Maresca v. State
748 P.2d 3 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1987)
Buchanan v. State
69 P.3d 694 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2003)
McNair v. State
825 P.2d 571 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ballard (Daniel) v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballard-daniel-v-state-nev-2015.