during the interview, without reference to the recorded statement. See id.;
United State v. Liera-Morales, 759 F.3d 1105, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014); United
States v. Ramirez-Perez, 166 F.3d 1106, 1112-13 (11th Cir. 1999).
Furthermore, even if the rule of completeness did apply, Lang has failed to
demonstrate that the statements proffered by the State were misleading
or taken out of context. See United States v. Vallejos, 742 F.3d 902, 905
(9th Cir. 2014) (stating that the purpose of the rule of completeness is to
"avert misunderstanding or distortion caused by introduction of only part
of a document" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, we conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit
portions of Lang's interview. See Crowley v. State, 120 Nev. 30, 34, 83
P.3d 282, 286 (2004) (reviewing decisions to exclude evidence for abuse of
discretion).
Next, Lang contends that the evidence adduced at trial was
insufficient to support the convictions because the evidence did not show
that he was aware that the property was stolen. After reviewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that
any rational juror would have found all of elements of the offenses beyond •
a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979);
McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992); NRS
205.060(1); NRS 205.275(1). The evidence at trial showed that within four
hours after a burglary of a home, Lang entered a pawnshop and pawned
some of the property that was stolen from the home, specifically a
Nintendo Wii system, two single diamond earrings, and one pair of gold
earrings. Lang told police that he had pawned the property for a friend
but could not remember who the friend was. We conclude that a rational
juror could reasonably infer from the evidence that Lang knew or should
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
have known that the property was stolen when he entered the pawnshop.
Deveroux v. State, 96 Nev. 388, 391, 610 P.2d 722, 724 (1980)
("[C]ircumstantial evidence alone may sustain a conviction.").
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
J.
Saitta
J.
Pickering
cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge
Clark County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A 46P(D