Stewart v. State, 580 P.2d 473 (Nev. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Stewart v. State, 580 P.2d 473 (Nev. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
31 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Aycock (Devontay) Vs. State (nev, 2021-06-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Aycock (Devontay) Vs. State
Nev. · 2021 · confidence medium
And, while Aycock testified that he feared for his life and believed that the victim reached for a weapon, this court has consistently "held that where there is conflicting testimony presented, it is for the jury to determine what weight and credibility to give to the testimony." Stewart v. State, 94 Nev. 378, 379 , 580 P.2d 473, 473 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Rose v. State, 123 Nev. 194, 202-03 , 163 P.3d 408, 414 (2007) (providing that this court will not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the jury).
discussed Cited "see" Bedrosian (Edward) Vs. State (2×)
Nev. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stewart v. State, 94 Nev. 378, 379 , 580 P.2d 473, 473 (1978) (providing that this court has consistently "held that where there is conflicting testimony presented, it is for the jury to determine what weight and credibility to give to the testimony" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
discussed Cited "see" Knight (Wilbert) Vs. State
Nev. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stewart v. State, 94 Nev. 378, 379 , 580 P.2d SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (01 1947A 454ba, tab --;agariktea "c totality of the evidence adduced at trial against Knight as well as against coconspirator Black, a rational juror could properly infer that Knight was involved with Black in a conspiracy regarding the third home invasion and robbery.
examined Cited "see" Manley v. State (4×)
Nev. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stewart v. State, 94 Nev. 378, 379-80 , 580 P.2d 473, 474 (1978).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Slobodian v. State (4×)
Nev. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71 , 624 P.2d 20 (1981); see also Stewart v. State, 94 Nev. 378 , 580 P.2d 473 (1978); Porter v. State, 94 Nev. 142 , 576 P.2d 275 (1978); Hankins v. State, 91 Nev. 477 , 538 P.2d 167 (1975).
SHIRLEY JEAN STEWART, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
9869.
Nevada Supreme Court.
Jun 28, 1978.
580 P.2d 473
Morgan D. Harris, Public Defender, and Kirk B. Lenhard, Deputy Public Defender, Clark County for Appellant., Robert List, Attorney General, Carson City; George E. Holt, District Attorney, and H. Leon Simon, Chief Appellate Deputy, Clark County, for Respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

[*379] OPINION

Per Curiam:

Convicted, by jury verdict, of attempted murder (NRS 200.010; NRS 208.070), [1] appellant here contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction, and (2) she was denied a fair trial because of prosecutorial misconduct. We disagree.

1. Although defense witnesses testified that appellant had shot the victim in self defense, the jury chose to believe the prosecution witnesses’ testimony that appellant had threatened the victim and then shot him without provocation. We have previously held 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).

2. Appellant argues she was denied a fair trial through improper questioning by the prosecutor. On direct examination, appellant testified that she had been convicted of felony manslaughter in 1970. On cross-examination, the prosecutor attempted to delve further into appellant’s prior conviction. Before appellant had an opportunity to answer an[*380] allegedly improper question, her counsel objected and the objection was sustained. The prosecutor did not pursue the line of questioning. Under these circumstances, we fail to perceive either prejudice or reversible error. See State v. Worth, 537 P.2d 191 (Kan. 1975); Lister v. State, 528 P.2d 1126 (Okla.Crim.App. 1974). Cf. Fairman v. State, 83 Nev. 287, 429 P.2d 63 (1967).

Affirmed.

1

NRS 200.010 provides:

“Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, with malice aforethought, either express or implied. The unlawful killing may be effected by any of the various means by which death may be occasioned.”

NRS 208.070 provides, in pertinent part:

“An act done with intent to commit a crime, and tending but failing to accomplish it, is an attempt to commit that crime. ...”