Lang (Jason) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: June 10, 2015
• Docket: 66324
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

during the interview, without reference to the recorded statement. See id.; United State v. Liera-Morales, 759 F.3d 1105, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014); United States v. Ramirez-Perez, 166 F.3d 1106, 1112-13 (11th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, even if the rule of completeness did apply, Lang has failed to demonstrate that the statements proffered by the State were misleading or taken out of context. See United States v. Vallejos, 742 F.3d 902, 905 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating that the purpose of the rule of completeness is to "avert misunderstanding or distortion caused by introduction of only part of a document" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit portions of Lang's interview. See Crowley v. State, 120 Nev. 30, 34, 83 P.3d 282, 286 (2004) (reviewing decisions to exclude evidence for abuse of discretion). Next, Lang contends that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support the convictions because the evidence did not show that he was aware that the property was stolen. After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that any rational juror would have found all of elements of the offenses beyond • a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992); NRS 205.060(1); NRS 205.275(1). The evidence at trial showed that within four hours after a burglary of a home, Lang entered a pawnshop and pawned some of the property that was stolen from the home, specifically a Nintendo Wii system, two single diamond earrings, and one pair of gold earrings. Lang told police that he had pawned the property for a friend but could not remember who the friend was. We conclude that a rational juror could reasonably infer from the evidence that Lang knew or should

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A have known that the property was stolen when he entered the pawnshop. Deveroux v. State, 96 Nev. 388, 391, 610 P.2d 722, 724 (1980) ("[C]ircumstantial evidence alone may sustain a conviction."). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

J. Saitta

J. Pickering

cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A 46P(D