Deeds v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Deeds v. State

626 P.2d 271, 97 Nev. 216, 1981 Nev. LEXIS 485

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedApril 10, 1981

Docket12546

StatusPublished

Cited by27 cases

This text of 626 P.2d 271 (Deeds 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

Deeds v. State, 626 P.2d 271, 97 Nev. 216, 1981 Nev. LEXIS 485 (Neb. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual assault. One assault, forced fellatio, occurred in the victim’s living room; the other assault, forced sexual intercourse, *217 occurred in the bedroom. Appellant contends that the evidence was “contradictory” and insufficient to support conviction and that the court erred in finding him guilty of two counts of sexual assault.

It is well established law in Nevada that in a rape case, a jury may convict upon the uncorroborated testimony of the victim. Henderson v. State, 95 Nev. 324, 594 P.2d 712 (1979); May v. State, 89 Nev. 277, 510 P.2d 1368 (1973); Bennett v. Leypoldt, 77 Nev. 429, 366 P.2d 343 (1961). Here the victim testified that she saw the appellant face to face for over thirty minutes and that the appellant committed sexual assault upon her. The jury was entitled to believe this testimony.

This court has often stated that where there is conflicting testimony presented at a criminal trial, it is within the province of the jury to determine the weight and credibility of the testimony. Wicker v. State, 95 Nev. 804, 603 P.2d 265 (1979); Hankins v. State, 91 Nev. 477, 538 P.2d 167 (1975). When there is substantial evidence to support a verdict in a criminal case, as there is in this case, the reviewing court will neither disturb.the verdict nor set aside the judgment. Gatlin v. State, 96 Nev. 303, 608 P.2d 1100 (1980); Sanders v. State, 90 Nev. 433, 529 P.2d 206 (1974).

Concerning claimed error in the double conviction Wicker v. State, supra, is controlling. The great weight of authority supports the proposition that separate and distinct acts of sexual assault committed as a part of a single criminal encounter may be charged as separate counts and convictions entered thereon. See Hamill v. State, 602 P.2d 1212 (Wyo. 1979); People v. Perez, 23 Cal.3d 545, 153 Cal.Rptr. 40, 591 P.2d 63 (1979); People v. Saars, 584 P.2d 622 (Colo. 1978); People v. Robinson, 80 Mich.App. 559, 264 N.W.2d 58 (1978); State v. Hill, 104 Ariz. 238, 450 P.2d 696 (1969).

Since neither of appellant’s contentions has merit, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual assault. One assault, forced fellatio, occurred in the victim’s living room; the other assault, forced sexual intercourse, *217 occurred in the bedroom. Appellant contends that the evidence was “contradictory” and insufficient to support conviction and that the court erred in finding him guilty of two counts of sexual assault.

It is well established law in Nevada that in a rape case, a jury may convict upon the uncorroborated testimony of the victim. Henderson v. State, 95 Nev. 324, 594 P.2d 712 (1979); May v. State, 89 Nev. 277, 510 P.2d 1368 (1973); Bennett v. Leypoldt, 77 Nev. 429, 366 P.2d 343 (1961). Here the victim testified that she saw the appellant face to face for over thirty minutes and that the appellant committed sexual assault upon her. The jury was entitled to believe this testimony.

This court has often stated that where there is conflicting testimony presented at a criminal trial, it is within the province of the jury to determine the weight and credibility of the testimony. Wicker v. State, 95 Nev. 804, 603 P.2d 265 (1979); Hankins v. State, 91 Nev. 477, 538 P.2d 167 (1975). When there is substantial evidence to support a verdict in a criminal case, as there is in this case, the reviewing court will neither disturb.the verdict nor set aside the judgment. Gatlin v. State, 96 Nev. 303, 608 P.2d 1100 (1980); Sanders v. State, 90 Nev. 433, 529 P.2d 206 (1974).

Concerning claimed error in the double conviction Wicker v. State, supra, is controlling. The great weight of authority supports the proposition that separate and distinct acts of sexual assault committed as a part of a single criminal encounter may be charged as separate counts and convictions entered thereon. See Hamill v. State, 602 P.2d 1212 (Wyo. 1979); People v. Perez, 23 Cal.3d 545, 153 Cal.Rptr. 40, 591 P.2d 63 (1979); People v. Saars, 584 P.2d 622 (Colo. 1978); People v. Robinson, 80 Mich.App. 559, 264 N.W.2d 58 (1978); State v. Hill, 104 Ariz. 238, 450 P.2d 696 (1969).

Since neither of appellant’s contentions has merit, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

626 P.2d 271, 97 Nev. 216, 1981 Nev. LEXIS 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deeds-v-state-nev-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack