Paige (Bryan) v. State

Paige responded by firing two additional shots, hitting the victim in the abdomen. Circumstantial evidence alone may sustain a conviction. Buchanan v. State, 119 Nev. 201, 217, 69 P.3d 694, 705 (2003). It is for the jury to determine the weight and credibility to give conflicting testimony, McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992), see also Harkins v. State, 122 Nev. 974, 990, 143 P.3d 706, 716 (2006) ("self- defense is not available to an original aggressor"), and a jury's verdict will not be disturbed on appeal where, as here, sufficient evidence supports the verdict, Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 73, 624 P.2d 20, 20 (1981); see also NRS 0.060; NRS 193.165(6)(a); NRS 200.481(a). Therefore, we conclude that Paige's contention is without merit. Second, Paige contends that the district court erred by rejecting his proposed jury instruction offered pursuant to NRS 171.126 regarding an arrest by a private person. We disagree. "This court reviews a district court's decision to issue or not to issue a particular jury instruction for an abuse of discretion." Ouanbengboune v. State, 125 Nev. 763, 774, 220 P.3d 1122, 1129 (2009). Here, the district court heard arguments from counsel and determined that Paige was not entitled to the instruction because "there's no evidence he was making a citizen arrest. He didn't say that. He wanted to undo the deal." Defense counsel conceded the point, stating, It] here's no evidence" that Paige attempted to arrest the victim prior to shooting him. We agree and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Paige's proposed instruction. Third, Paige contends that the district court erred by denying his pretrial habeas petition based on the claim that the State acted with

SUPREME COURT OF

NEVADA 2 (0) I947A 34P7:0 9,

conscious indifference to his procedural rights by moving for a second continuance prior to his preliminary examination without a demonstration of good cause. See NRS 171.196(2) ("If the defendant does not waive examination, the magistrate shall hear the evidence within 15 days, unless for good cause shown the magistrate extends such time."). We disagree with Paige's contention. We review a district court's determination regarding a pretrial habeas petition for substantial error. Sheriff v. Shade, 109 Nev. 826, 828, 858 P.2d 840, 841 (1993). A district court's determination regarding conscious indifference is a determination of fact, State v. Lamb, 97 Nev. 609, 611, 637 P.2d 1201, 1202 (1981), which will not be disturbed on appeal so long as substantial evidence in the record supports that determination, Sheriff v. Roylance, 110 Nev. 334, 337, 871 P.2d 359, 361 (1994). Here, the district court denied Paige's habeas petition after finding, among other things, that the State complied with the requirements of Bustos v. Sheriff Clark County, 87 Nev. 622, 624, 491 P.2d 1279, 1280-81 (1971), and presented testimony at the hearing on the motion "sufficient" to demonstrate good cause. We agree and conclude that the district court did not err by denying Paige's pretrial habeas petition. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

J.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) I947A

cc: Hon. Nancy L. Porter, District Judge Gary D. Woodbury Attorney General/Carson City Elko County District Attorney Elko County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) 1947A oklirOP