IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
REBECCA BARRINGTON, No. 68517
Appellant,
vs. FILED
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Respondent. MAY 2 6 2016
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE a I
TY cc
EMAN
RK
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a
jury verdict, of discharging a firearm where a person might be
endangered Third Judicial District Court, Lyon County; Leon Aberasturi,
Judge.
Appellant Rebecca Barrington resided in a neighborhood
located in Silver Springs, Nevada. Barrington owned livestock, which she
contained within a pen near her residence. The house next to hers was
occupied by David Madden, his girlfriend, the girlfriend's young son, and a
Chihuahua. Barrington fired a .25 caliber pistol in the neighborhood at
least once, in an attempt to frighten away Madden's dog.
Barrington claims that several errors occurred during trial to
warrant reversal of her conviction, including that the State failed to
present sufficient evidence to support her conviction. We conclude that
this argument lacks merit. See McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d
571, 573 (1992) (explaining that the standard of review when analyzing
the sufficiency of the evidence "in a criminal case 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") (internal quotations omitted). Our review of the record
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0 1947A a
Lo 620
demonstrates that 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.
Further, Barrington asserts eight additional assignments of
error: (1) the State failed to properly charge her with a facially valid
information, which infected the entire case; (2) NRS 202.290 is
unconstitutionally vague and overbroad;' (3) the State's failure to collect
physical evidence constitutes reversible error; (4) the State committed
prosecutorial misconduct by making certain comments during the trial; (5)
the jury instructions improperly discussed how the word "willfully" should
be applied in NRS 202.290; (6) the district court improperly seated an
alternate juror; (7) the district court improperly allowed a witness to
testify as an expert witness; and (8) cumulative error warrants reversal of
her conviction. Upon review of the record, we conclude that all of these
arguments lack merit. Accordingly, we
'According to appellant, NRS 202.290, in light of the word "might"
as used in the statute, lacks specific standards of enforcement and fails to
place Nevada citizens on notice as to the proscribed conduct. In response,
the State contends that appellant's interpretation is absurd and that a
proper reading of NRS 202.290 demonstrates that appellant has failed to
fulfill her burden of making a clear showing of invalidity. We conclude
that appellant's arguments are not sufficiently developed and thus lack
merit. See Sheriff v. Vlasak, 111 Nev. 59, 61-62, 888 P.2d 441, 443 (1995)
(stating that statutes are presumptively valid and the burden is on the
party challenging them to demonstrate their unconstitutionality).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A Cfp
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Gibbons
cc: Hon. Leon Aberasturi, District Judge
Brandt H. Butko
Karla K. Butko
Attorney General/Carson City
Lyon County District Attorney
Third District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A ea>