Opinion
No. 56846.
07-14-2011
Norm MANSOUR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
Mueller Hinds & Associates Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney
Mueller Hinds & Associates
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE AND LIMITED REMAND TO CORRECT THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to a jury verdict of possession of stolen property. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jackie Glass, Judge.
Appellant Norm Mansour contends that insufficient evidence supports his conviction for possession of stolen property because the State failed to present any evidence that he knew or should have known that the cigarettes were stolen. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether any rational juror could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992). Here, the jury heard testimony that Raja Jones and his female companion, Melissa Beatty, met with Mansour after stealing 55 cartons of cigarettes from a convenience store. They met late at night in a well-lit parking lot near a busy gas station and then traveled to a darker parking lot near some businesses that were closed for the evening. Jones exited his Cadillac and handed the cigarettes to Mansour, who placed them in the minivan that he was driving. Mansour had $2,243 in his possession, his registered handgun was found in the minivan, and the minivan was registered to someone else. Evidence that Mansour was the owner of a smoke shop that sold cigarettes was also presented to the jury. We conclude that a rational juror could infer from these circumstances that Mansour knew or a reasonable person would have known that the cigarettes were stolen. See NRS 205.275(1). 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. Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 73, 624 P.2d 20, 20 (1981) ; see also Buchanan v. State, 119 Nev. 201, 217, 69 P.3d 694, 705 (2003) (circumstantial evidence alone may sustain a conviction).
Having considered Mansour's contention, we conclude that he is not entitled to relief. However, our review of the record reveals a clerical error in the judgment of conviction; it states that Mansour was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea when, in fact, he was convicted pursuant to a jury verdict. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED and REMAND this matter to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment of conviction.