From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hunt v. State

Supreme Court of Nevada
Sep 17, 1976
92 Nev. 536 (Nev. 1976)

Opinion

No. 8971

September 17, 1976

Appeal from the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Howard W. Babcock, J.

Morgan D. Harris, Public Defender, and Terrence M. Jackson, Deputy, Clark County, for Appellant.

Robert List, Attorney General, Carson City; George E. Holt, District Attorney, and Howard C. Jones, Deputy, Clark County, for Respondent.


OPINION


At the conclusion of a bench trial Roxanne Hunt was adjudged guilty of the crime of grand larceny, a felony under NRS 205.220. After receiving a four (4) year sentence, which was suspended, and being placed on probation for three (3) years, she perfected this appeal contending the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.

Whether the trier of fact in a criminal case is a jury — or a judge, as here — the sufficiency of the evidence test is the same.

The test ". . . for sufficiency upon appellate review is not whether this court is convinced of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether this court can conclude the trier of facts could, acting reasonably, be convinced to the degree of certitude by the evidence which it had a right to believe and accept as true." Crowe v. State, 84 Nev. 358, 366, 441 P.2d 90, 95 (1968). Cf. Sanders v. State, 90 Nev. 433, 529 P.2d 206 (1974).

"That the evidence is insufficient to warrant the judgment cannot be maintained, as there is substantial testimony for its support. In fact, the case seems to have been fairly tried and properly decided, both in fact and law." Blackie v. Cooney, 8 Nev. 41, 49 (1872). Accordingly, we affirm.


Summaries of

Hunt v. State

Supreme Court of Nevada
Sep 17, 1976
92 Nev. 536 (Nev. 1976)
Case details for

Hunt v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROXANNE HUNT, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Nevada

Date published: Sep 17, 1976

Citations

92 Nev. 536 (Nev. 1976)
554 P.2d 255

Citing Cases

Thompson v. State

3. Notwithstanding appellant's contention to the contrary, his conviction is supported by substantial…

Rembert v. State

We are not convinced that it was unreasonable for the jury to accept the victim's testimony as true and to…