Vasquez-Reyes (Armando) v. State

Supreme Court OF Nevaba 1Or NTA SRR IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA ARMANDO VASQUEZ-REYES, A/K/A No. 80293 ARMANDO VASQUIEZREYES, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of two counts of lewdness with a child under the age of 14 and eight counts of sexual assault with a minor under the age of 14.1 Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michelle Leavitt, Judge. The district court sentenced appellant Armando Vasquez-Reyes to an aggregate sentence of life with the possibility of parole after 45 years and required him to register as a sex offender upon release. Vasquez-Reyes raises numerous issues on appeal. Sufficiency of the evidence Vasquez-Reyes summarily argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence to support his convictions. We disagree. The State presented testimony from the victims that supported each of Vasquez- Reyes’ convictions. Both victims testified with particularity about the crimes, including when and where in the household the sexual abuse occurred. That testimony alone is sufficient to support the convictions. See Gaxiola v. State, 121 Nev. 638, 648, 119 P.3d 1225, 1232 (2005) (explaining that “the uncorroborated testimony of a victim, without more, is sufficient to uphold a rape conviction”). Moreover, Vasquez-Reyes confessed to 1Pursuant to NRAP 34()(1), we conclude that oral argument is not warranted. 2 r-08614 Supreme Court OF Nevana (0) 194TA sea touching one of the victims (G.A.) on multiple occasions, including on her breast and legs, and to sexually penetrating her. Therefore, we conclude that a rational juror could find the essential elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. See NRS 200.364(9) (defining “sexual penetration”); NRS 200.366(1)(b) (sexual assault with a minor); NRS 201.230 (ewdness with a minor); see also Origel-Candido v. State, 114 Nev. 378, 381, 956 P.2d 1378, 1380 (1998) (holding that, in reviewing sufficiency of the evidence challenges, the relevant inquiry is “whether, after reviewing 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” (quoting Koza v. State, 100 Nev. 245, 250, 681 P.2d 44, 47 (1984))); McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992) (providing that “it is the jury’s function, not that of the court, to assess the weight of the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses”). Prosecutorial misconduct Vasquez-Reyes also argues that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct.” In resolving claims of prosecutorial misconduct, we first determine whether misconduct occurred and then decide whether any misconduct denied the defendant a fair trial. Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1188, 196 P.3d 465, 476 (2008). As relevant here, with respect to the second step, we “will not reverse a conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct if it was harmless error,” and where the error is not of constitutional dimensions, we “will reverse only if the error substantially affects the jury’s verdict.” Id. at 1188-89, 196 P.3d at 476. 2Vasquez-Reyes objected below to each alleged instance of prosecutorial misconduct addressed in this order. 2 em] Supreme Court oF Nevapa 1 7A