Opinion ID: 1375439
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Sufficiency of the evidence in the guilt phase

Text: Jason contends that the evidence presented at trial was enough to constitute only second degree murder because the events happened upon a quick rage and [Jason] demonstrated remorse and confusion thereafter. The test for sufficiency of the evidence upon appellate review is not whether this court is convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether a 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); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788-89, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Sanders v. State, 90 Nev. 433, 434, 529 P.2d 206, 207 (1974). Therefore, we must determine whether the jury acted unreasonably in assessing the evidence before them. Edwards, 90 Nev. at 258-59, 524 P.2d at 331. Here, evidence which a jury could reasonably conclude amounted to premeditation consists of (1) Shaun's and Scottie's testimony that Jason stopped beating Chantelle, stated Now it's time to call the police, and resumed the beating; (2) Shaun's and Nichole's testimony that shortly before the beating Chantelle screamed, He's choking me and He's going to kill me; (3) Scottie's testimony that during the beating, Jason paused, looked at Chantelle, and continued beating her despite the fact that she was not moving; and (4) Dr. Jordan's testimony regarding the extent of Chantelle's injuries. [2] Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient for  any rational trier of fact [to find] the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. at 2788-89 (emphasis in original).