Williams v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Williams v. State

484 P.2d 1088, 87 Nev. 230, 1971 Nev. LEXIS 395

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedMay 14, 1971

Docket6460

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 484 P.2d 1088 (Williams 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

Williams v. State, 484 P.2d 1088, 87 Nev. 230, 1971 Nev. LEXIS 395 (Neb. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

This appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict of guilty of grand larceny returned by a jury against the appellant.

It appears that the appellant is really complaining about the weight of the evidence rather than its sufficiency. She argues that there was a discrepancy between the testimony of one of the state’s witnesses at the trial and her written statement to the police following the criminal act.

In McGuire v. State, 86 Nev. 262, 468 P.2d 12 (1970), we said: “It is the function of the jury and not the reviewing court to weigh the evidence.” See State v. Bourdlais, 70 Nev. 233, *231 255, 265 P.2d 761 (1954). “Where there is substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict of the jury, it will not be overturned by an appellate court.” Tellis v. State, 85 Nev. 679, 462 P.2d 526 (1969); Cross v. State, 85 Nev. 580, 460 P.2d 151 (1969); Criswell v. State, 84 Nev. 459, 443 P.2d 552 (1968); Crowe v. State, 84 Nev. 358, 441 P.2d 90 (1968); Henry v. State, 83 Nev. 194, 426 P.2d 791 (1967); Graftenreed v. State, 87 Nev. 217, 484 P.2d 720 (1971).

To restate the evidence contained in this record would serve no purpose. We have considered it and find sufficient facts from which reasonable inferences could be drawn to prove each and every material element of the offense charged.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See Pinana v. State, 76 Nev. 274, 352 P.2d 824 (1960).

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

OPINION

Per Curiam:

This appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict of guilty of grand larceny returned by a jury against the appellant.

It appears that the appellant is really complaining about the weight of the evidence rather than its sufficiency. She argues that there was a discrepancy between the testimony of one of the state’s witnesses at the trial and her written statement to the police following the criminal act.

In McGuire v. State, 86 Nev. 262, 468 P.2d 12 (1970), we said: “It is the function of the jury and not the reviewing court to weigh the evidence.” See State v. Bourdlais, 70 Nev. 233, *231 255, 265 P.2d 761 (1954). “Where there is substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict of the jury, it will not be overturned by an appellate court.” Tellis v. State, 85 Nev. 679, 462 P.2d 526 (1969); Cross v. State, 85 Nev. 580, 460 P.2d 151 (1969); Criswell v. State, 84 Nev. 459, 443 P.2d 552 (1968); Crowe v. State, 84 Nev. 358, 441 P.2d 90 (1968); Henry v. State, 83 Nev. 194, 426 P.2d 791 (1967); Graftenreed v. State, 87 Nev. 217, 484 P.2d 720 (1971).

To restate the evidence contained in this record would serve no purpose. We have considered it and find sufficient facts from which reasonable inferences could be drawn to prove each and every material element of the offense charged.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See Pinana v. State, 76 Nev. 274, 352 P.2d 824 (1960).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

484 P.2d 1088, 87 Nev. 230, 1971 Nev. LEXIS 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-nev-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack