Marshall v. State
Nevada Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
Marshall, appellant-defendant, was tried before a jury and found guilty of burglary, a violation of NRS 205.060. Appellant asserts on appeal that there was insufficient evidence adduced at his trial to support his conviction. It is a long established rule of this court that upon appeal we must sustain a conviction if the record contains substantial evidence to support the conviction. We have reviewed the record and find therein substantial evidence to support the appellant’s conviction and prove each and every element of the crime with which he was charged. Coffins v. State, 87 Nev.…
3Cases cited4 opinions
- McGuire v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1970
- Cross v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1969
- Collins v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1971
- Graham v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1970
4Cited by7 opinions
- State v. NelsonIdaho Court of Appeals · 1987
- Williams v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1972
- Carpenter v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1972
- Roby v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1978
- Roby v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1978
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.