FREEMAN II v. STATE (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Appellant Vincent Freeman II argues that insufficient evidence supported the domestic battery convictions because the State failed to establish the existence of a domestic relationship between Freeman and victim Massiel Lantigua. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); see also Origel-Candido v. State, 114 Nev. 378, 381, 956 P.2d 1378, 1380 (1998). “[I]t is the jury's function, not that of the court, to assess the weight of the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses.” Rose v. State, 123 Nev. 194, 202-03, 163 P.3d 408, 414 (2007) (internal quotations omitted).

The State had the burden to show that the offense was committed against a person with whom the defendant had a qualifying relationship, including a past or current “dating relationship.” NRS 33.018(1). A dating relationship is not a “casual relationship or an ordinary association between persons in a business or social context.” NRS 33.018(3). Rather, such a relationship requires “frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional or sexual involvement.” Id.

Lantigua testified that Freeman battered her during an argument in which she sought to end their five-month relationship. During the relationship, the two intermittently lived together and Lantigua referred to Freeman as her “fiancé.” Lantigua also testified that Freeman was her “only family” in Las Vegas. Additionally, the State presented medical records in which Freeman was noted to be Lantigua's “partner” and “significant other” while accompanying her at the hospital. We conclude that a rational juror could reasonably infer from this evidence that Freeman and Lantigua were in a relationship of sufficient intimacy and affection to constitute a dating relationship beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we conclude that sufficient evidence supported Freeman's convictions for domestic battery.

Freeman also argues that the district court erred by denying a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the probable cause to support the charged offenses at the preliminary hearing. We conclude that the jury verdict rendered any error in the probable cause determination harmless. See Dettloff v. State, 120 Nev. 588, 596, 97 P.3d 586, 591 (2004) (explaining that a jury's finding of guilt under the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard of proof “cured any irregularities that may have occurred during the grand jury proceedings”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.