older. Thereafter, the district court instructed the jury to complete a 

special verdict form, containing four options—(1) all jurors find Duenas 

guilty based on premeditated and deliberate murder, (2) all jurors find 

Duenas guilty based on felony murder, (3) some of the jurors find Duenas 

guilty based on premeditated and deliberate murder and some jurors find 

Duenas guilty based on felony murder, and (4) all jurors find Duenas 

guilty based on premeditated and deliberate and felony murder. The 

jurors chose the third option. Duenas contends that the special verdict 

form shows that at least some of the jurors based their verdicts on a 

premeditated-murder theory, thereby rejecting the alternative theory of 

felony murder, and because the State presented insufficient evidence of 

premeditated murder, his first-degree murder conviction must be 

reversed. 

A special verdict was unnecessary in this case because the 

jury does not need to be unanimous on a particular theory of culpability to 

sustain a conviction for a single offense, see generally Anderson v. State, 

121 Nev. 511, 515, 118 P.3d 184, 186 (2005), and we discourage the use of 

special verdicts absent circumstances requiring a special verdict. See e.g., 

McConnell v. State, 120 Nev. 1043, 1069, 102 P.3d 606, 624 (2004) 

(requiring a special verdict in death penalty cases where the State 

charges alternative theories of premeditated and felony murder and bases 

a felony aggravating circumstance on the predicate felony underlying the 

felony-murder theory). Moreover, we are not convinced that the special 

verdict form establishes that the jurors who found Duenas guilty based on 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
a premeditated-and-deliberate-murder theory rejected the felony-murder 

theory. For example, the special verdict form did not offer an option 

stating that all jurors concluded that the evidence supported a felonymurder theory but some of them also concluded that the evidence 

supported the premeditation theory. 

The evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly supports a 

felony-murder theory, see Origel-Candido v. State, 114 Nev. 378, 381, 956 

P.2d 1378, 1380 (1998); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), and 

that is sufficient to uphold the conviction, see generally Anderson, 121 

Nev. at 515, 118 P.3d at 186 ("A unanimous general verdict of guilt will 

support a conviction so long as there is substantial evidence in support of 

one of the alternate theories of culpability."). The evidence shows that the 

victim worked as a store clerk at the Loco Liquor Store in Las Vegas. As 

requested by his supervisor, the victim kept a Glock 9mm handgun with 

him during his shift. On the night of August 7, 2009, Duenas entered the 

liquor store with a Ruger P75 handgun. At some point, the victim and 

Duenas exchanged gunfire. Shortly thereafter, the victim's body was 

discovered behind the sales counter. Six shell casings were discovered 

near the sales counter—four behind the counter, one on top of the 

counter, and one in front of the counter. The victim fired those shots. 

One of the shots hit Duenas in the left hip. Duenas fired at least four 

shots, two of which inflicted substantial injuries to the victim, resulting in 

his death. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3 
Having considered Duenas' argument and concluded that it 

lacks merit, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

J. 

Douglas Saitta 

cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, District Judge 

Clark County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4