Case Name: KIMBLE EDWARD DUTTON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1978-08-25
Citations: 94 Nev. 567
Docket Number: No. 10013
Parties: KIMBLE EDWARD DUTTON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 94
Pages: 567–569

Head Matter:
KIMBLE EDWARD DUTTON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
No. 10013
August 25, 1978
583 P.2d 457
Morgan D. Harris, Public Defender, and James B. Gubler, Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.
Robert List, Attorney General, Carson City; George E. Holt, District Attorney, and H. Leon Simon, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION
Per Curiam:
Convicted, by jury verdict, of burglary (NRS 205.060), appellant here contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. We disagree.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the issue "is not whether this court is convinced of [appellant's] guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether the jury, acting reasonably, could be convinced to that certitude by evidence it had a right to accept." Edwards v. State, 90 Nev. 255, 258-59, 524 P.2d 328, 331 (1974). Here, the record indicates that on the evening of November 5, 1976, Ms. Nelda Hunter called the police to report that someone had just broken a window and entered her house. A police officer arrived within four or five minutes and discovered two men standing next to a back window of the house. The men looked at the police officer and then fled over a fence located behind the house. The police officer pursued the men and found the appellant lying face down in some sagebrush about 20 feet from the fence. The record further indicates that appellant, while testifying in his own defense, admitted going to the Hunter residence, but stated he had gone there to purchase marijuana and never entered the house. In our view this evidence, although circumstantial, is sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict and, accordingly, the judgment will not be disturbed. See Crawford v. State, 92 Nev. 456, 552 P.2d 1378 (1976); Edwards v. State, supra.