IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
MICHAEL DWAYNE SMITH, No. 80940
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
FILE
Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a
jury verdict, of burglary while in possession of a firearm, first-degree
kidnapping with the use of a deadly weapon, first-degree kidnapping with
the use of a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm, attempted
murder with the use of a deadly weapon, two counts of battery with the use
of a deadly weapon, three counts of attempted robbery with the use of a
deadly weapon, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.' Eighth
Judicial District Court, Clark County; William D. Kephart, Judge.
Appellant Michael Smith argues that the district court erred in
limiting his cross-examination of the investigating detective about the
victims credibility based on narcotics found in their apartment. At trial,
Smith asked the detective if he had "ever charged somebody who declared
themselves a victim of a crime with an actual crime themselvesr The State
objected on relevance grounds, and the district court sustained the
objection. Smith contends this prevented him from challenging the
credibility of the three victims. We disagree because Smith has not shown
'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we conclude that oral argument is not
warranted.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) I947A Efigrg. -7(-16397-
:
that the detectives decision not to pursue charges against the victims made
any fact at issue more or less probable at trial, see NRS 48.015 (defining
relevant evidence), or had any bearing on the victim& credibility, see NRS
50.075 (providing that a witness's credibility may be impeached).
Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
See Azbill v. State,
(1972) ("The scope
and extent of cross-examination is largely within the sound discretion of the
trial court and in the absence of abuse of discretion a reversal will not be
granted."); see also NRS 48.025(2) (providing that irrelevant evidence is
inadmissible). Moreover, even assuming error, it was harmless given that
Smith cross-examined the victims about the narcotics found in their
apartment and their drug use. And the detective testified that he did not
charge the victims for the narcotics found in their apartment. See NRS
178.598 (harmless error standard).
Smith also argues that insufficient evidence supports his
convictions because the jury did not hear the impeachment evidence
discussed above. Because we consider the evidence actually presented at
trial, see McNair v. State,
(1992)
(providing that 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."'
(quoting Jackson v. Virginia,
(1979))), we disagree and
conclude that sufficient evidence supports Smith's convictions. The first
victim testified that Smith entered the apartment with a firearm,
demanded drugs and money, struck him with the firearm, and bound and
gagged him. The second victim testified that Smith demanded drugs and
money and moved her around the apartment at gunpoint. Finally, the third
2
victim testified that Smith demanded money before shooting him in the hip
and striking him in the head with an object. And the jury had an
opportunity to assess the victims credibility. See id. at 56,
C[I]t is the jury's function, not that of the [reviewing] court, to assess the
weight of the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses."). Thus,
we conclude that a rational juror could find the essential elements of each
charged crime. See NRS 193.165; NRS 193.330; NRS 200.010; NRS
200.310; NRS 200.380; NRS 200.481; NRS 205.060. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
..
, J.
Cadish
*
, J.
Pickering
(4"—Y , J.
Herndon
cc: Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court
Department 19, Eighth Judicial District Court
Mayfield, Gruber & Sanft/Las Vegas
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
3
