Monroe (Anthony) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Monroe (Anthony) v. State

DecidedJune 12, 2013

Docket62157

StatusUnpublished

This text of Monroe (Anthony) v. State (Monroe (Anthony) 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

Monroe (Anthony) v. State, (Neb. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

them, wrestled with the asset protection specialist, and "tried to make physical contact with [the assistant store manager] by trying to swing at him." The asset protection specialist testified that prior to the confrontation, she verbally identified herself to Monroe as "Home Depot security" and while doing so "might have touched his hand." Surveillance videotape of the incident was played for the jury. Circumstantial evidence alone may sustain a conviction. Buchanan v. State, 119 Nev. 201, 217, 69 P.3d 694, 705 (2003). It is for the jury to determine the weight and credibility to give conflicting testimony, McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992), and a jury's verdict will not be disturbed on appeal where, as here, sufficient evidence supports the verdict, Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 73, 624 P.2d 20, 20 (1981); see also NRS 200.380(1). Therefore, we conclude that Monroe's contention is without merit. Second, Monroe contends that the district court erred by rejecting his proposed jury instruction defining "larceny." Monroe fails to offer any cogent argument or legal authority in support of his claim and we need not address it. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). Nevertheless, we note that the State met its burden of proof on the greater offense of robbery and Monroe's contention is without merit. See Lisby v. State, 82 Nev. 183, 188, 414 P.2d 592, 595 (1966) (holding that "if the prosecution has met its burden of proof on the greater offense and there is no evidence at the trial tending to reduce the greater offense, an instruction on a lesser included offense may properly be refused"); see also Davis v. State, 110 Nev. 1107, 1115, 881 P.2d 657, 662 (1994). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A Monroe's proposed instruction. See Ouanbengboune v. State, 125 Nev. 763, 774, 220 P.3d 1122, 1129 (2009). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Hardesty

Parraguirre Cherry

cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge Janet S. Bessemer Michael V. Roth Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A •,s

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

them, wrestled with the asset protection specialist, and "tried to make physical contact with [the assistant store manager] by trying to swing at him." The asset protection specialist testified that prior to the confrontation, she verbally identified herself to Monroe as "Home Depot security" and while doing so "might have touched his hand." Surveillance videotape of the incident was played for the jury. Circumstantial evidence alone may sustain a conviction. Buchanan v. State, 119 Nev. 201, 217, 69 P.3d 694, 705 (2003). It is for the jury to determine the weight and credibility to give conflicting testimony, McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992), and a jury's verdict will not be disturbed on appeal where, as here, sufficient evidence supports the verdict, Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 73, 624 P.2d 20, 20 (1981); see also NRS 200.380(1). Therefore, we conclude that Monroe's contention is without merit. Second, Monroe contends that the district court erred by rejecting his proposed jury instruction defining "larceny." Monroe fails to offer any cogent argument or legal authority in support of his claim and we need not address it. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). Nevertheless, we note that the State met its burden of proof on the greater offense of robbery and Monroe's contention is without merit. See Lisby v. State, 82 Nev. 183, 188, 414 P.2d 592, 595 (1966) (holding that "if the prosecution has met its burden of proof on the greater offense and there is no evidence at the trial tending to reduce the greater offense, an instruction on a lesser included offense may properly be refused"); see also Davis v. State, 110 Nev. 1107, 1115, 881 P.2d 657, 662 (1994). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting