Case Name: CLYDE DUWAYNE CRAWFORD, GEORGE ROBERT SPARKS, STEVEN KENNETH ENOS, Appellants, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1976-08-04
Citations: 92 Nev. 456
Docket Number: No. 8402
Parties: CLYDE DUWAYNE CRAWFORD, GEORGE ROBERT SPARKS, STEVEN KENNETH ENOS, Appellants, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 456–457

Head Matter:
CLYDE DUWAYNE CRAWFORD, GEORGE ROBERT SPARKS, STEVEN KENNETH ENOS, Appellants, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
No. 8402
August 4, 1976
552 P.2d 1378
Morgan D. Harris, Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellants.
Robert List, Attorney General, Carson City; George E. Holt, District Attorney, dark County, for Respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION
Per Curiam:
Clyde Duwayne Crawford, George Robert Sparks and Steven Kenneth Enos were convicted, by jury verdict, of grand larceny and third degree arson. After being sentenced to concurrent terms in the Nevada State Prison the three men perfected this appeal contending there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury verdict.
Evidence adduced at trial established, inter alia, that (1) an automobile had been stolen and "stripped" of the engine, radiator, chrome wheels, tires, battery and headrests; (2) appellants were apprehended, in a pickup truck, a short distance from the burning vehicle; and, (3) the engine, radiator, wheels, tires, battery and headrests were in the bed of the pickup truck.
1. "On appeal, the issue is not whether this court would have found appellant guilty, but whether the jury properly could." Anstedt v. State, 89 Nev. 163, 165, 509 P.2d 968, 969 (1973). "Where there is substantial evidence to support a verdict in a criminal case, as the record indicates exists in this case, the reviewing court will not disturb the verdict nor set aside the judgment." Sanders v. State, 90 Nev. 433, 434, 529 P.2d 206, 207 (1974).
2. Although some of the evidence was circumstantial in nature, such evidence was admissible. This court has previously, and consistently, upheld convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence. See, for example, O'Brien v. State, 88 Nev. 488, 500 P.2d 693 (1972), and cases cited therein.
Affirmed.