sufficiency of the evidence challenge in Nevada

2018A sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge asks "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." Middleton v. State, 114 Nev. 1089 , 1103, 968 P.2d 296 , 306 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original).

2018A sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge asks "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." Middleton v. State, 114 Nev. 1089 , 1103, 968 P.2d 296 , 306 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original).

2014Moreover, when "assessing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, [we] must consider all of the evidence admitted by the trial court, regardless whether that evidence was admitted erroneously." Stephans v. State, 127 Nev. „ 262 P.3d 727, 734 (2011) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).

2014"In assessing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, 'a reviewing court must consider all of the evidence admitted by the trial court, regardless whether that evidence was admitted erroneously." Stephans v. State, 127 Nev. , 262 P.3d 727, 734 (2011) (emphasis in original) (quoting McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120, 131 (2010)).

2022When it comes to a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crirne beyond a reasonable doubt." McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992) (emphasis ornitted) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).

2022When it comes to a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crirne beyond a reasonable doubt." McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992) (emphasis ornitted) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).

2016This challenge rests on Castaneda's charge that the State failed to prove "that it was Castaneda, and not a virus, automated program, or another individual who knowingly and willfully possessed the [pornographic] images." A criminal conviction will survive a sufficiency of the evidence challenge 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." Grey v. State, 124 Nev. 110, 121, 178 P.3d 154, 162 (2008) (quoting Nolan v. State, 122 Nev. 363, 377, 132 P.3d 564

2016This challenge rests on Castaneda's charge that the State failed to prove "that it was Castaneda, and not a virus, automated program, or another individual who knowingly and willfully possessed the [pornographic] images." A criminal conviction will survive a sufficiency of the evidence challenge 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." Grey v. State, 124 Nev. 110, 121, 178 P.3d 154, 162 (2008) (quoting Nolan v. State, 122 Nev. 363, 377, 132 P.3d 564

2016This challenge rests on Castaneda's charge that the State failed to prove "that it was Castaneda, and not a virus, automated program, or another individual who knowingly and willfully possessed the [pornographic] images." A criminal conviction will survive a sufficiency of the evidence challenge 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." Grey v. State, 124 Nev. 110, 121, 178 P.3d 154, 162 (2008) (quoting Nolan v. State, 122 Nev. 363, 377, 132 P.3d 564

2016This challenge rests on Castaneda's charge that the State failed to prove "that it was Castaneda, and not a virus, automated program, or another individual who knowingly and willfully possessed the [pornographic] images." A criminal conviction will survive a sufficiency of the evidence challenge 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." Grey v. State, 124 Nev. 110, 121, 178 P.3d 154, 162 (2008) (quoting Nolan v. State, 122 Nev. 363, 377, 132 P.3d 564

2014"In assessing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, 'a reviewing court must consider all of the evidence admitted by the trial court, regardless whether that evidence was admitted erroneously." Stephans v. State, 127 Nev. , 262 P.3d 727, 734 (2011) (emphasis in original) (quoting McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120, 131 (2010)).

2014"In assessing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, 'a reviewing court must consider all of the evidence admitted by the trial court, regardless whether that evidence was admitted erroneously." Stephans v. State, 127 Nev. , 262 P.3d 727, 734 (2011) (emphasis in original) (quoting McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120, 131 (2010)).

2011See Crowe v. State, 84 Nev. 358, 366-67 , 441 P.2d 90, 95 (1968) (“The test... for sufficiency upon appellate review is . . . 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.”).

2011See Crowe v. State, 84 Nev. 358, 366-67 , 441 P.2d 90, 95 (1968) (“The test... for sufficiency upon appellate review is . . . 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.”).

2022When it comes to a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crirne beyond a reasonable doubt." McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56 , 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992) (emphasis ornitted) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).

2022When it comes to a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crirne beyond a reasonable doubt." McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992) (emphasis ornitted) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).

2021Because the district court decides a motion for a judgment of acquittal under NRS 175.381(2) based on a sufficiency of the evidence standard, Purcell, 110 Nev. at 1394, 887 P.2d at 279; see Evans, 112 Nev. at 1193, 926 P.2d at 279, appellate review of an order denying such a motion "is in essence the same as a review of the sufficiency of the evidence." Johns, 686 F.3d at 446.

2021Because the district court decides a motion for a judgment of acquittal under NRS 175.381(2) based on a sufficiency of the evidence standard, Purcell, 110 Nev. at 1394, 887 P.2d at 279; see Evans, 112 Nev. at 1193, 926 P.2d at 279, appellate review of an order denying such a motion "is in essence the same as a review of the sufficiency of the evidence." Johns, 686 F.3d at 446.

2021Because the district court decides a motion for a judgment of acquittal under NRS 175.381(2) based on a sufficiency of the evidence standard, Purcell, 110 Nev. at 1394, 887 P.2d at 279; see Evans, 112 Nev. at 1193, 926 P.2d at 279, appellate review of an order denying such a motion "is in essence the same as a review of the sufficiency of the evidence." Johns, 686 F.3d at 446.

2021Because the district court decides a motion for a judgment of acquittal under NRS 175.381(2) based on a sufficiency of the evidence standard, Purcell, 110 Nev. at 1394, 887 P.2d at 279; see Evans, 112 Nev. at 1193, 926 P.2d at 279, appellate review of an order denying such a motion "is in essence the same as a review of the sufficiency of the evidence." Johns, 686 F.3d at 446.

2021Because the district court decides a motion for a judgment of acquittal under NRS 175.381(2) based on a sufficiency of the evidence standard, Purcell, 110 Nev. at 1394, 887 P.2d at 279; see Evans, 112 Nev. at 1193, 926 P.2d at 279, appellate review of an order denying such a motion "is in essence the same as a review of the sufficiency of the evidence." Johns, 686 F.3d at 446.

2021Because the district court decides a motion for a judgment of acquittal under NRS 175.381(2) based on a sufficiency of the evidence standard, Purcell, 110 Nev. at 1394 , 887 P.2d at 279 ; see Evans, 112 Nev. at 1193 , 926 P.2d at 279 , appellate review of an order denying such a motion "is in essence the same as a review of the sufficiency of the evidence." Johns, 686 F.3d at 446 .

2020In assessing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, we evaluate "the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution" and ask "whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. State, 117 Nev. 116, 122 , 17 P.3d 998, 1002 (2001) (quoting Domingues v. State, 112 Nev. 683, 693 , 917 P.2d 1364, 1371 (1996)).

2020In assessing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, we evaluate "the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution" and ask "whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. State, 117 Nev. 116, 122 , 17 P.3d 998, 1002 (2001) (quoting Domingues v. State, 112 Nev. 683, 693 , 917 P.2d 1364, 1371 (1996)).

2020Here, the indictment charged Estrada-Lopez with the two alternative theories of assault.3 See Walker v. State, 116 Nev. 670 , 673, 6 P.3d 477, 479 (2000) CThe State may proceed on alternate theories of 3We reject Estrada-Lopez contention that legislative history precludes the State from charging alternate theories as the statute's plain language clearly allows it.

2020In assessing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, we evaluate "the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution" and ask "whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. State, 117 Nev. 116, 122 , 17 P.3d 998, 1002 (2001) (quoting Domingues v. State, 112 Nev. 683, 693 , 917 P.2d 1364, 1371 (1996)).

2020In assessing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, we evaluate "the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution" and ask "whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. State, 117 Nev. 116, 122 , 17 P.3d 998, 1002 (2001) (quoting Domingues v. State, 112 Nev. 683, 693 , 917 P.2d 1364, 1371 (1996)).

2015There was sufficient evidence to support Jones's conviction In assessing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the question is not "whether this court is convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether the jury, acting reasonably, could be convinced to that certitude by evidence it had a right to [consider]." Edwards v. State, 90 Nev. 255, 258-59 , 524 P.2d 328, 331 (1974). "[A] reviewing court must consider all of the evidence admitted by the trial court, regardless [of] whether that evidence was admitted erroneously." Stephans v. State, 127 Nev., Adv.

2015There was sufficient evidence to support Jones's conviction In assessing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the question is not "whether this court is convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether the jury, acting reasonably, could be convinced to that certitude by evidence it had a right to [consider]." Edwards v. State, 90 Nev. 255, 258-59 , 524 P.2d 328, 331 (1974). "[A] reviewing court must consider all of the evidence admitted by the trial court, regardless [of] whether that evidence was admitted erroneously." Stephans v. State, 127 Nev., Adv.

2014When all of the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational juror could conclude that nonconsensual anal and vaginal penetration occurred and that Conner deliberately and with premeditation intended to kill Jardine by repeatedly striking her in the head with the hammer. "[lit is the jury's function, not that of the court, to assess the weight of the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses," and "a verdict supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed by a reviewing court." McNair, 108 Nev. at 56, 825 P.2d at 573; see also Buchanan v. Stat

2014When all of the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational juror could conclude that nonconsensual anal and vaginal penetration occurred and that Conner deliberately and with premeditation intended to kill Jardine by repeatedly striking her in the head with the hammer. "[lit is the jury's function, not that of the court, to assess the weight of the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses," and "a verdict supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed by a reviewing court." McNair, 108 Nev. at 56, 825 P.2d at 573; see also Buchanan v. Stat

1984See Jensen v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 123 , 508 P.2d 4 (1973) (intent to commit a crime may be inferred from circumstances surrounding the crime itself).

1984See Jensen v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 123 , 508 P.2d 4 (1973) (intent to commit a crime may be inferred from circumstances surrounding the crime itself).