IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ERICK ALEXANDER MEDINA, No. 81270
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Respondent.
FIL
, JUN 1 1 2021
ELJZABETH BROWN
CLERK Ì SUÅ EME COURT _
SY
PUTY LERK
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a
jury verdict, of six counts of lewdness with a child under the age of 14 and
one count of child abuse, neglect, or endangerment.' Eighth Judicial
District Court, Clark County; Joseph Hardy, Jr., Judge.
Appellant first argues that insufficient evidence supports the
jury's verdict. He asserts that the victim's testimony lacked corroboration
and that he presented an alternative explanation for the victim's
allegations: to help the victim's sister get custody of the child the sister
shared with appellant. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting a criminal conviction, this court considers "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." McNair v. State,
, 825
'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument
is not warranted in this appeal.
P.2d 571, 573 (1992) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia,
(1979)).
Here, the victim testified that, when she was 13 years old, appellant
exposed and rubbed her breasts, forcibly kissed her mouth and breasts, and
attempted to remove her pants. See NRS 200.508(1) (establishing the
elements of a charge for abuse, neglect, or endangerment of a child); NRS
201.230(2) (establishing the elements of a charge for lewdness with a child
under 16 years of age). And, as appellant acknowledges on appeal, victim
testimony alone is enough to support a jury verdict. See LaPierre v. State,
(1992) (recognizing that "the testimony
of a sexual assault victim alone is sufficient to uphold a conviction").
Moreover, because witness credibility belongs to the jury, we disagree with
appellant's assertion that the jury's rejection of his defense warrants
reversal. See Rose v. State,
(2007)
(holding that the jury, not this court, assesses witness credibility and the
weight of the evidence). Accordingly, we conclude that sufficient evidence
supports the jury's verdict.
Appellant also claims the district court erred in not admitting
certain evidence that rebutted witness testimony that appellant sent
harassing messages to the victim's sister about the child they shared. We
conclude that any error in not admitting the evidence was harmless as it
did not substantially affect the verdict. See Valdez v. State,
(2008) (discussing non-constitutional
harmless error review). Appellant's counsel questioned the sister
extensively regarding her and appellant's discussions about their child after
the victim's allegations against appellant surfaced. Appellant also testified
regarding their communication, and the district court admitted some of the
SUPREME COURT
Of
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A 41111D141,
messages between him and the sister. Together, this evidence rebutted the
other witness's testimony that appellant's messages were harassing in
nature. Reversal on this issue is therefore not warranted. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
..
, J.
Cadish
,
Pie,64 , J.
Pickering
A
Herndon
, J.
cc: Hon. Joseph Hardy, Jr., District Judge
Las Vegas Defense Group, LLC
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
