2 

ti 7-f, -

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a rational trier of fact. 

See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Mitchell v. State, 124 

Nev. 807, 816, 192 P.3d 721, 727 (2008). 

Officer Patrick Blas of the Reno Police Department's Regional 

Gang Unit was called by the State to discuss his knowledge of the BPL 

gang. See NRS 193.168(7). Unlike the brief, conclusory testimony 

disapproved of by this court in Origel-Candido, 114 Nev. at 382-83, 956 

P.2d at 1381, Officer Bias testified in detail about the inner workings of 

the gang. Officer Bias testified that at the time of Hernandez's trial, there 

were 47 documented members and associates of the BPL gang. Officer 

Blas discussed the initiation procedures, which included "jumping in," 

where a recruit "will take a beat down" for any number of seconds or 

minutes by members of the gang "to show his loyalty and allegiance." 

Officer Bias also discussed "putting in work" as a form of initiation, where 

to prove loyalty, recruits will commit "various crimes, drive by shootings, 

getting involved in fights," in order to promote themselves and 

demonstrate "that they would commit these crimes on behalf of the gang 

and take the fall or do whatever it took." BPL members "use various 

different identifiers and symbols," such as monikers, "[t] attoos, clothing, 

graffiti," in order to "let everyone know what their turf is, their 

geographical location, who they are and what gang they are." Officer Bias 

addressed the BPL's history and place within the larger, organized Surerio 

gang umbrella and identified several of their rival gangs. 

Among other things, Officer Blas testified about one 

particularly relevant aspect of the BPL code of conduct: how a younger 

member must "do without question" anything a senior member demands, 

including "backing up" and defending the senior member. Officer Bias 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

`. 
stated that there is "a system in place" for a violation of the code, 

specifically, physical punishment, "[m]ost commonly some kind of beat up. 

. . . It could be a stabbing. It could even be worse." Officer Blas testified 

that "every contact that I have ever had and the gang unit has ever had 

with Brown Pride involves some type of investigatory stop or some type of 

investigation into a crime," ranging "from shootings, theft, destruction of 

property, graffiti, your batteries, fights, assaults, extortion, drugs, drug 

possession, drugs sales." Officer Bias stated that although active 

members come and go, BPL "[a]s an organization itself with respect to 

being a street gang, they are doing. . . all the crimes and everything they 

should be doing in order to maintain their name and maintain their status 

on the street." 

Additional trial testimony indicated that Hernandez, 

responding to his gang moniker of "Danger," responded to a call for backup from a senior member of the BPL gang engaged in a fight, and hurled 

two bricks, striking two individuals, one in the head and the other in the 

face, causing substantial bodily harm. One of the victims was holding the 

hand of a two-year-old child when she was struck with the brick. While 

we recognize that the statements of counsel do not constitute evidence, we 

note that Hernandez conceded in his opening statement that he was a 

gang member. 

Circumstantial evidence alone may sustain a conviction. 

Buchanan v. State, 119 Nev. 201, 217, 69 P.3d 694, 705 (2003). It is for 

the jury to determine the weight and credibility to give conflicting 

testimony, McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992), and 

a jury's verdict will not be disturbed on appeal where, as here, sufficient 

evidence supports the verdict and application of the gang enhancement for 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3 

-UvVYVAAEWAWIlr.c.1-1 -nc-'3.: 7,,?tT - wriffilENNINGAcgijnt -15MINSIMARWT-7,-.D.- DEMME 
sentencing purposes, Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 73, 624 P.2d 20, 20 

(1981); see also NRS 193.168(1), (8); NRS 200.481(2)(e)(2); NRS 

200.508(1)(b). Therefore, we conclude that Hernandez's contention is 

without merit. 

Second, Hernandez contends that the district court erred by 

imposing multiple sentence enhancements pursuant to NRS 

200.481(2)(e)(2) (stating the penalty for battery with the use of a deadly 

weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm) and NRS 193.168(1) (gang 

enhancement). "[W] e review questions of statutory interpretation de 

novo." State v. Lucero, 127 Nev. „ 249 P.3d 1226, 1228 (2011). 

Here, the use of a deadly weapon causing substantial bodily harm was an 

element of the crime charged and did not serve as a sentence 

enhancement. See NRS 193.165(4) (the deadly weapon enhancement does 

"not apply where the use of a .firearm, other deadly weapon or tear gas is a 

necessary element of such crime"). Therefore, we conclude that 

Hernandez only received the gang enhancement at sentencing and his 

contention is without merit. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge 

Laub & Laub 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4 

14EIRE&XNEVIN ' -1.7,NY'f(PErj'5411.'