holding that in reviewing sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges, "the relevant inquiry is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt" (internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- holding that in reviewing sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges, "the relevant inquiry is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt" (internal quotation marks omitted)
- explaining that in resolving a challenge to the sufficieney of the evidence to support a jury verdict, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt
- stating sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict if, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt" (internal quotation marks omitted)
- holding that evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Rose, J.,
with whom Maupin, J., joins,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur in the majority opinion affirming Origel-Candido’s judgment of conviction for discharging a firearm into a house, but I disagree with its holding that no evidence was produced at trial which shows that the Maravilla gang was a criminal gang as defined by statute. I believe there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the jury’s finding that the Maravilla gang was a criminal gang as defined by NRS 193.168(6).
Nevada’s criminal gang enhancement statute provides for an equal and consecutive sentence if the underlying felony was “committed knowingly for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in affiliation with, a criminal gang, with the specific intent to pro *384 mote, further or assist the activities of the criminal gang.” NRS 193.168(1). Pursuant to NRS 193.168(6), a criminal gang is defined as:
6. ... any combination of persons, organized formally or informally, so constructed that the organization will continue its operation even if individual members enter or leave the organization, which:
(a) Has a common name or identifying symbol;
(b) Has particular conduct, status and customs indicative of it; and
(c) Has as one of its common activities engaging in criminal activity punishable as a felony, other than the conduct which constitutes the primary offense.
We have held that, “[t]he Due Process clause of the United States Constitution protects an accused against conviction except on proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” Carl v. State, 100 Nev. 164, 165 , 678 P.2d 669, 669 (1984). NRS 193.168(3)(b) also requires that the gang enhancement be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Origel-Candido asserts that no evidence established that the Maravilla gang engaged in criminal activity as one of its common activities, and the majority holds that insufficient evidence was presented on this point. I disagree.
The evidence presented at trial established that the Maravilla gang was a “street gang” that employed graffiti monograms, and engaged in territorial control and retaliatory activity— characteristics of a criminal gang. The State’s gang expert also testified that he had personal knowledge that felonies were committed by the Maravilla gang members prior to the firearm being discharged into Cisneros’ house, and that those felony crimes were committed in the course of or in furtherance of the activities of the Maravilla gang. This evidence was uncontroverted. I believe this evidence permits a jury to find, as the jury did in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the requirements of NRS 193.168(6)(c) had been met.
Accordingly, I would affirm the penalty assessed pursuant to the gang enhancement statute, as well as the underlying conviction.