Opinion ID: 2547270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The State presented sufficient evidence to convict Daniels of robbery

Text: Daniels argues that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to show that he used force or the threat of force to take Detective Leavitt's wallet. Thus, Daniels argues that he could not have been guilty of robbery. We disagree. In relevant part, NRS 200.380(1) defines robbery as the unlawful taking of personal property ... by means of force or violence or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property. A taking is by means of force or fear if force or fear is used to: (a) Obtain or retain possession of the property; (b) Prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; or (c) Facilitate escape. [15] Daniels argues that he did not commit robbery because he did not attack Detective Leavitt with his hands or fists. This argument is without merit. The degree of force used is immaterial if it is used to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property. [16] Here, Daniels shoved his hand into Detective Leavitt's face in order to show him the necklace. Detective Leavitt testified that Daniels used such force that Detective Leavitt's own hands were pressed against his face as he attempted to push Daniels away. Detective Leavitt further testified that the altercation made him nervous because he had been attacked numerous times in similar altercations while acting in an undercover capacity. We conclude that Daniels' actions fit within the definition of robbery. Daniels used force and the threat of force to prevent Detective Leavitt from noticing or resisting the taking. Having determined that Daniels' actions fit within the statute, the next question is whether sufficient evidence was presented at trial to find Daniels guilty of robbery. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence below, we consider whether the jury, acting reasonably, could have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. [17] The critical question is `whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' [18] Sufficient evidence was presented at trial to convict Daniels of robbery. The jury heard Detective Leavitt testify that Daniels forced his hand into Detective Leavitt's face and that the contact caused Detective Leavitt to be in apprehension of violence. The jury also heard that while his hand was in Detective Leavitt's face, Daniels took the wallet from Detective Leavitt's breast pocket. Under the above test, this evidence was sufficient to sustain a robbery conviction.