Bolden (Jason) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: August 4, 2022
• Docket: 79715
• Status: Published

Opinion

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