Court Opinion

ID: 9786778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:02:30.963781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:48.591167
License: Public Domain

Maupin, C. J.,
with whom Becker, J., agrees,
dissenting:
We respectfully dissent and would affirm the judgment of conviction. In our view, there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Batin was guilty of embezzlement. Historically, this court has afforded great deference in reviewing a jury’s finding, refusing to overturn a verdict that is supported by sufficient evidence.1
To prove that a defendant committed the crime of embezzlement, the State must proffer evidence that the defendant was entrusted with lawful possession of the property which he converted.2 The State need not prove that the defendant actually possessed the property, but must merely prove that the defendant had constructive possession of the property alleged to have been embezzled.3
In viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we conclude that there is ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict that Batin had constructive possession of the paper currency inside the bill validator. The State proffered evidence that Batin’s employer entrusted him with an SDS card, which allowed Batin to access the bill validator inside the slot machine where the currency was kept. Moreover, Batin’s job, as prescribed by his employer, included safeguarding the funds contained inside the bill validator when he made a slot machine repair and when supervising non-employee slot machine repairmen. In safeguarding the currency inside the bill validator, Batin was entrusted with dominion and control over that currency in a manner sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Batin had constructive possession over the funds that he converted.4
Accordingly, because we conclude that there was sufficient evidence of the crime of embezzlement, we would affirm the judgment of conviction.

 McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 825 P.2d 571 (1992); Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 624 P.2d 20 (1981).

 NRS 205.300(1).

 See 3 Charles E. Torda, Wharton’s Criminal Law § 393 (15th ed. 1995).

 See Palmer v. State, 112 Nev. 763, 768, 920 P.2d 112, 115 (1996) (defining constructive possession as “ ‘both the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion or control over a thing, either directly or through another person or persons’ ” (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1163 (6th ed. 1990))).