Opinion ID: 2590362
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Sufficiency of the evidence supporting the finding of a deadly weapon

Text: Berry argues that even if the district court properly instructed the jury, there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the toy pellet gun was a deadly weapon. Specifically, Berry claims that the State failed to establish either that the Speedy Toys pellet gun could fire a projectile by the force of an explosion or combustion, see NRS 202.253(2), or that it was capable of firing a metal projectile. See NRS 202.265(5)(b). We agree and conclude that this failure warrants reversal of the aggravated sentence for burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon and the deadly weapon enhancement sentence for the robbery conviction. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury verdict in a criminal case, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determines whether ` any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. ' Mitchell v. State, 124 Nev. ___, ___, 192 P.3d 721, 727 (2008) (quoting Koza v. State, 100 Nev. 245, 250, 681 P.2d 44, 47 (1984)). In this case, as previously discussed, in order to meet its burden of proof, the State had to establish that the pellet gun Berry possessed during, and used in, the commission of the crimes was indeed a deadly weapon under NRS 193.165. According to the applicable statutes, the pellet gun would have been a deadly weapon if it was (1) designed to cause substantial bodily harm or death, NRS 193.165(6)(a); (2) used in a manner which, under the circumstances, could cause substantial bodily harm or death pursuant to NRS 193.165(6)(b); (3) capable of expelling a metal projectile by use of spring, gas, air, or other force pursuant to NRS 202.265(5)(b); or (4) designed to expel a projectile by the force of an explosion pursuant to NRS 202.253(2). The record does not reveal any evidence presented by the State that suggests that the pellet gun at issue was specifically designed to cause substantial bodily harm or death, see NRS 193.165(6)(a), that Berry used the pellet gun in a manner that could cause substantial bodily harm or death, see NRS 193.165(6)(b), or that the gun was designed to expel a projectile by the force of an explosion. See NRS 202.253(2). Instead, the record reflects that the State attempted to prove that the gun was a deadly weapon under NRS 202.265(5)(b) by presenting evidence that the gun was capable of firing metal projectiles. But the only evidence offered at trial consisted of testimony regarding the type of projectile that this gun was capable of firing, which came from Detective Spiotto. Detective Spiotto's testimony that the pellet gun would be capable of firing a projectile was based on the fact that [n]ormally a gun of its type was operated by a sealed-to-cartridge spring mechanism. He also explained that a pellet for the gun is usually plastic but could be metal. Notably, when specifically asked whether the gun could fire a bullet, he answered, Definitely not a .45, but I guess if you made one small enough, you canI don't know what a .22 would do in there. According to Detective Spiotto, no one had tried to fire the gun and no projectiles of any kind were found in Berry's possession upon arrest. Based on the uncertainty of this testimony, we determine that no rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the gun was capable of firing metal projectiles. [3] Therefore, because Detective Spiotto's testimony did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this weapon was within NRS 202.265(5)(b)'s definition of firearm or any other definition of deadly weapon, we conclude that the State's evidence was insufficient to support Berry's deadly weapon enhancements.