were "in an extreme condition and would be easily used as a weapon more 

so than the typical extender on a normal golf pencil." 

Deputy Lux also discovered, hidden from plain view, an item 

which he described as approximately eleven inches long, made from a 

rolled-up magazine and "toilet paper that was wetted, hardened, like 

squeezed to make smaller. . . wrapped around with packing tape holding 

it together." The item was "very hard," he "couldn't bend it," and based on 

his training, Deputy Lux identified it as an illegal billy, stating, "[y]ou can 

strike somebody with it, [and] use it as a choking instrument." Deputies 

Paul Poljak and Lux both testified that a billy, "basically," is a club. 

Deputy Iveson testified that the billy was "pretty well made" and 

"dangerous." A photograph of the billy was admitted as an exhibit. 

Deputy Lux testified that inmates were not allowed to have pencil 

extenders or billies in their cells, so they were confiscated as contraband 

and booked into evidence. 

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, Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 73, 624 P.2d 20, 

20 (1981); see also NRS 212.185(1)(a) & (c). Therefore, we conclude that 

Zabala's contention is without merit. 

Second, Zabala contends that NRS 212.185(1)(a) & (c) are 

unconstitutionally vague because "[a] reasonable person reading [the 

statute] would not have notice that a rolled up magazine constituted a 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
'billy,' or that a jail-issued golf pencil constituted a 'sharp instrument." 

We disagree with Zabala's contention. 

"The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law, which 

this court reviews de novo." Aguilar-Raygoza v. State, 127 Nev. „ 

255 P.3d 262, 264 (2011), cert. denied, U.S. 132 S. Ct. 551 (2011). 

A statute is unconstitutionally vague "(1) if it fails to provide a person of 

ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited; or (2) if it is so 

standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory 

enforcement." State v. Castaneda, 126 Nev. „ 245 P.3d 550, 553 

(2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Statutes are presumed to be 

valid and the challenger bears the burden of demonstrating their 

unconstitutionality. Nelson v. State, 123 Nev. 534, 540, 170 P.3d 517, 522 

(2007). 

Zabala was charged, pursuant to NRS 212.185(1)(a) & (c), with 

"being a person incarcerated" and having "in his possession and/or under 

his dominion and control, a 'billy' or other similar weapon, instrument or 

device and/or a sharp instrument capable of being used as a weapon." The 

statute is not vague because a person of ordinary intelligence has fair 

notice that possession by an inmate of a rolled-up magazine and golf 

pencils, altered in the manner described above, is forbidden. Further, 

Zabala fails to demonstrate that the statute encourages discriminatory 

and arbitrary enforcement. Therefore, we conclude that Zabala failed to 

satisfy his burden and demonstrate that the statute is unconstitutional. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3 
Saitta 

Third, Zabala contends that the district court erred by 

rejecting his two proposed instructions defining "billy." 1We disagree. 

"This court reviews a district court's decision to issue or not to issue a 

particular jury instruction for an abuse of discretion." Ouanbengboune v. 

State, 125 Nev. 763, 774, 220 P.3d 1122, 1129 (2009). Here, the district 

court rejected Zabala's proposed instructions after noting that the jury 

was "properly instructed on the elements of the offense" and that "the 

term has been the subject of testimony which is for the jury to consider." 

As noted above, two deputies testified that a billy, "basically," is a club. 

Further, Zabala's proposed instructions were misleading. See Carter v. 

State, 121 Nev. 759, 765, 121 P.3d 592, 596 (2005) (defendant not entitled 

to misleading or inaccurate jury instructions). We conclude that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Zabala's proposed 

instructions. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

Douglas 

1Rejected instruction no. 1: "Billy' is defined as a heavy, usually 

wooden club." Rejected instruction no. 2: "Billy' is defined as a tin or 

enamel cooking pot with a lid and a wire handle, for use when camping or 

a heavy, usually wooden club." 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4 
cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge 

Washoe County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

5