Opinion
No. 60060.
09-13-2012
Christian Nathanal BRYANT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney
Clark County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of robbery, battery with the use of a deadly weapon, and two counts of possession of a controlled substance. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Linda Marie Bell, Judge.
Appellant Christian Nathan Bryant contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for battery with the use of a deadly weapon because he acted in self-defense. We disagree, and conclude that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, is sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a rational trier of fact. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) ; see also Wilkins v. State, 96 Nev. 367, 374, 609 P.2d 309, 313 (1980). Bryant was confronted by several individuals outside of a Las Vegas nightclub after a night of drinking. The group requested that Bryant return a purse that had gone missing from inside the club and was now visibly tucked into his waistband. Bryant told them to “back off” and attempted to walk away. When the group followed and continued to ask for the purse, he picked up a glass bottle from the alleyway and struck Mike Walbey in the forearm as Walbey shielded his face. Bryant then fled the scene. Bryant contends that he felt threatened by the confrontation and acted in self-defense in his attack on Walbey, thereby negating the element of unlawfulness of battery with a deadly weapon. See NRS 200.481(1)(a).
The jury could reasonably infer from the evidence presented that Bryant was not acting to defend himself when he struck Walbey, and that Bryant was the aggressor rather than the defender. It is for the jury to determine the weight and credibility to give conflicting testimony, and the jury's verdict will not be disturbed on appeal where, as here, substantial evidence supports the verdict. See Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 73, 624 P.2d 20, 20 (1981) ; see also McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573(1992). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.