Opinion · Nevada Supreme Court

Bolden v. State

Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71 (Nev. 1981)

Type: Opinion
Court: Nevada Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Date: 1981-02-25
Topic: general

holding that a jury’s verdict will not be disturbed on appeal where substantial evidence supports it | holding that a jury's verdict will not be disturbed on appeal where substantial evidence supports it | reiterating that when conflicting testimony is presented, it is for the jury to determine what weight and credibility to give it | reiterating that when conflicting testimony is presented, it is for the jury to determine what weight and credibility to give it | noting that it is the jury's function to weigh witness credibility | noting that it is the jury’s function to weigh witness credibility | where testimony conflicts, it is for the trier of fact to determine what weight and credibility to give the testimony | where testimony conflicts, it is for the trier of fact to determine what weight and credibility to give the testimony | a jury's verdict will not be disturbed on appeal where sufficient evidence supports its verdict | upholding a jury verdict where conflicting testimony was presented | upholding a jury verdict where conflicting testimony was presented

Citator

Cited by: 100 opinions

OPINION

By the Court,

Mowbray, J.:

A jury convicted Rudy Bolden of robbery. He seeks reversal on the sole ground that the evidence presented at his trial did not support the jury’s verdict. We disagree and affirm Bolden’s judgment of conviction.

THE FACTS

Bolden, on February 14, 1979, pointed a .38 caliber revolver at a food checker in a grocery store and grabbed a handful of currency from the cash register. He fled the premises. The checker, soon after the robbery, identified an old photograph of Bolden from 250 prints at the police station. She repeated the identification several weeks later from a more recent picture. Finally, the checker made positive in-court identification of Bolden.

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO CONVICT

Appellant presented an alibi defense: he and his aunt testified that he was in Louisiana on February 13 and 14, 1979; he *73 introduced an envelope, without a letter, postmarked February 13, 1979, mailed from Louisiana and purportedly bearing Bolden’s nickname “Shyface” as the return addressee.

This Court has repeatedly held as recently as Stewart v. State, 94 Nev. 378, 580 P.2d 473 (1978) “that where ‘there is conflicting testimony presented, it is for the jury to determine what weight and credibility to give to the testimony.’ Hankins v. State, 91 Nev. 477, 538 P.2d 167, 168 (1975). Accord, Lloyd v. State, 94 Nev. 167, 576 P.2d 740 (1978); Porter v. State, 94 Nev. 142, 576 P.2d 275 (1978). Where, as here, there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Cunningham v. State, 94 Nev. 128, 575 P.2d 936 (1978); Sanders v. State, 90 Nev. 433, 529 P.2d 206 (1974).”

For these reasons we affirm the appellant’s judgment of conviction.

Gunderson, C. J., and Manoukian, Batjer, and Springer, JJ., concur.