Opinion ID: 1210547
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Sufficient evidence exists to support Thomas' conviction on each count.

Text: Thomas contends that insufficient evidence exists to support the jury's verdict on his conviction for each count and the deadly weapon enhancement for murder and kidnapping. After a review of the record, we conclude that sufficient evidence exists to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a rational trier of fact. See Wilkins v. State, 96 Nev. 367, 374, 609 P.2d 309, 313 (1980). The jury must determine the weight and credibility to give conflicting testimony, and its verdict will not be disturbed on appeal where sufficient evidence supports the verdict. Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 624 P.2d 20 (1981).
Thomas argues that the evidence does not support a burglary conviction because he entered the Lone Star with the intent to get his job back, not to commit a felony. NRS 205.060(1) provides: A person who, by day or night, enters any ... building ... with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or any felony, is guilty of burglary. See also NRS 205.060(4) (possession of a firearm during commission of a burglary). We conclude that the record demonstrates that Thomas intended to commit robbery when he entered the Lone Star. No dispute exists that Thomas entered the building with at least one loaded firearm. Evidence that Thomas asked Hemmes when he would return and that Thomas expressed discontent upon seeing a delivery truck near the Lone Star indicates that Thomas entered the building with the intent to commit a robbery and did not want extraneous people in the way. Further, Oddo's and Hall's testimony revealed that Thomas immediately thrust the gun in Oddo's face and demanded money. We conclude that the jury could reasonably conclude that Thomas formed the intent to rob before entering the building, and therefore, sufficient evidence was presented to convict Thomas of burglary.
Thomas contends sufficient evidence of conspiracy does not exist because Hall testified that they had formed no express agreement to rob or murder upon entering the Lone Star. Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons for an unlawful purpose. Doyle, 112 Nev. at 894, 921 P.2d at 911. `Conspiracy is seldom susceptible of direct proof and is usually established by inference from the conduct of the parties.' Gaitor v. State, 106 Nev. 785, 790 n. 1, 801 P.2d 1372, 1376 n. 1 (1990) (quoting State v. Dressel, 85 N.M. 450, 513 P.2d 187, 188 (N.M. 1973)), overruled on other grounds, Barone v. State, 109 Nev. 1168, 866 P.2d 291 (1993). Therefore, if a coordinated series of acts furthering the underlying offense is sufficient to infer the existence of an agreement, then sufficient evidence exists to support a conspiracy conviction. Id. Here, the jury could infer that an agreement was formed between Thomas and Hall to commit robbery when Thomas handed the gun to Hall and instructed him to collect the money from Oddo. Hall did collect the money and gave it to Thomas in the car. Further, without objection or interference, Hall observed Thomas bring a loaded gun into the Lone Star, point the gun at Oddo, and demand money. Accordingly, we conclude that Thomas' and Hall's conduct reasonably implies an agreement to commit robbery. However, the record does not reflect any evidence of an agreement between Hall and Thomas to commit murder. Nonetheless, the state satisfied its burden of proving the agreement to commit robbery, and the charging document states conspiracy to commit murder and/or robbery. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, the lack of an agreement to commit murder is inconsequential, and we affirm the conspiracy conviction.
Thomas argues that because Hall collected the money from Oddo and Thomas did not remain in the manager's office for the completion of the robbery, the evidence does not support his robbery conviction. We disagree. The record demonstrates that Thomas brought the loaded .32-caliber gun into the Lone Star, knocked on Oddo's office door, pointed the gun directly at Oddo, and stated something about the safe and money. The fact that Thomas handed the gun to Hall and left the room does not negate Thomas' involvement in the robbery, especially because Thomas instructed Hall to collect the money from Oddo. Further, Thomas later told Hall in the car that Hall should have killed Oddo to eliminate witnesses to the robbery. Accordingly, overwhelming evidence supports the robbery conviction.
This charge is based on Thomas restraining Dixon in the men's bathroom or enticing Dixon into the bathroom where he was murdered. NRS 200.310(1) provides in pertinent part that a first degree kidnapping occurs when [a] person ... willfully seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away a person by any means whatsoever with the intent to hold or detain, or ... holds or detains, the person... for the purpose of killing the person or inflicting substantial bodily harm upon him. Thomas first asserts that just because Dixon's body was found in the bathroom does not necessarily mean that Thomas enticed or decoyed Dixon into the bathroom for the purpose of killing him. Thomas fails to recognize that in his own videotaped confession, he admitted that he entered the bathroom and blocked the door specifically to prevent Dixon (and Gianakis) from leaving. Therefore, the statute is satisfied because Thomas willfully confined Dixon in the bathroom with the intent to hold or detain him. See id. Additionally, according to Thomas, when Dixon tried to leave, Thomas prevented him from doing so by stabbing him several times, thus killing him. Therefore, Thomas did hold or detain Dixon for the purpose of killing him. See id. Moreover, evidence that Thomas enticed Dixon into the bathroom was also presented through Hall's preliminary hearing testimony. Accordingly, sufficient evidence exists to support the kidnapping conviction.
NRS 200.030(1) provides in part: Murder of the first degree is murder which is: (a) Perpetrated by ... any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing; (b) Committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of ... kidnaping, ... robbery, [or] burglary ...; or (c) Committed to avoid or prevent the lawful arrest of any person by a peace officer .... Although Thomas could have been convicted of first degree murder under any one of these three theories, he argues that insufficient evidence exists only for premeditated murder under NRS 200.030(1)(a). Specifically, he argues that the evidence fails to show his specific intent to kill. We conclude that sufficient evidence exists to support Thomas' conviction under the felony-murder and avoid-arrest theories. See NRS 200.030(1)(b) and (c). As discussed above, sufficient evidence exists that Thomas committed burglary, robbery and kidnapping, and Dixon and Gianakis were both killed during those crimes. Also, Hall testified that in the car after the incident, Thomas expressed his preference for not leaving witnesses when committing a robbery. Nash and Smith testified that Thomas explained that he had to get rid of two people. Accordingly, regardless of whether sufficient evidence exists under a premeditation theory, Thomas was properly convicted of first degree murder under either the felony-murder or avoid-arrest theories. [3] Moreover, sufficient evidence exists that Thomas committed premeditated murder. Premeditation need only occur for an instant. Scott v. State, 92 Nev. 552, 555, 554 P.2d 735, 737 (1976). Thomas confessed that he stabbed Dixon several times and Gianakis twice. The medical examiner testified that Dixon was stabbed nineteen times. See DePasquale v. State, 106 Nev. 843, 848, 803 P.2d 218, 221 (1990) (Premeditation and deliberation can be inferred from the nature and extent of the injuries, coupled with repeated blows). The state also presented evidence that Thomas searched for Gianakis and chased him before fatally stabbing him. Additionally, Thomas later told his aunt, Nash, that he killed one man (Dixon), that the other (Gianakis) got away, and that Thomas hoped that he died. Taken together, the jury could reasonably conclude that Thomas premeditated the murders within moments of killing Dixon and Gianakis, even if he did not previously plan to kill them. Accordingly, sufficient evidence exists to support Thomas' murder counts.
Thomas argues that the meat-carving knife used in the murder and kidnapping was not a deadly weapon under the inherently dangerous test articulated in Zgombic v. State, 106 Nev. 571, 798 P.2d 548 (1990). Inherently dangerous means that the instrumentality itself, if used in the ordinary manner contemplated by its design and construction, will, or is likely to, cause a life-threatening injury or death. Id. at 576-77, 798 P.2d at 551; see also NRS 193.165(5)(a). [4] Here, the knife Thomas used to kidnap Dixon and kill both Dixon and Gianakis was a meat-carving knife with a five-to seven-inch blade. It is an inherently dangerous weapon due to the length of the blade and the sharpness required to carve meat. See Steese v. State, 114 Nev. 479, 499, 960 P.2d 321, 334 (1998) (a butcher knife with a five-to seven-inch blade used to carve meat is a deadly weapon as a matter of law under the inherently dangerous test). Accordingly, the knife used was a deadly weapon and could properly be used to enhance Thomas' conviction for murder and kidnapping.