WOODS v. STATE (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Appellant Jacob Woods argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for felon in possession of a firearm. Because the jury acquitted Woods of the other charges (battery with the use of a deadly weapon causing substantial bodily harm, discharging a firearm from within a vehicle, and attempted robbery with the use of a deadly weapon), Woods contends that the verdicts were inconsistent. Even assuming that the verdicts were inconsistent, that is not a basis for reversal where the verdict is otherwise supported by sufficient evidence. See United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 67 (1984) (“[A] criminal defendant already is afforded protection against jury irrationality or error by the independent review of the sufficiency of the evidence undertaken by the trial and appellate courts.”); Greene v. State, 113 Nev. 157, 173-74, 931 P.2d 54, 64 (1997), (holding that inconsistent verdicts are permitted when supported by sufficient evidence), receded from on other grounds by Byford v. State, 116 Nev. 215, 235, 994 P.2d 700, 713 (2000).

When reviewing for “sufficiency of the evidence, we must decide whether, 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.” Higgs v. State, 126 Nev. 1, 11, 222 P.3d 648, 654 (2010) (internal quotations marks omitted). “[I]t is the function of the jury, not the appellate court, to weigh the evidence and pass upon the credibility of the witness.” Walker v. State, 91 Nev. 724, 726, 542 P.2d 438, 439 (1975). “Circumstantial evidence alone may sustain a conviction,” Walker v. State, 113 Nev. 853, 861, 944 P.2d 762, 768 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted), and jurors are allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented, Wilkins v. State, 96 Nev. 367, 374-75, 609 P.2d 309, 313-14 (1980).

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime. See NRS 202.360(1) (defining felon in possession of a firearm). That evidence includes the victim's testimony that Woods referred to the firearm as belonging to him, the victim's testimony that Woods shot him, statements from other witnesses indicating Woods possessed the firearm, surveillance footage of the incident, and the gun holster found in Woods’ truck. And Woods concedes that the State provided sufficient evidence that Woods is a convicted felon. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.