Clarification of Sufficiency‐of‐Evidence Standard for Denial of Judgment of Acquittal in Elderly Robbery Cases

Introduction

In Davis (Hasan) v. State, No. 88543-COA (Nev. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2025), the Nevada Court of Appeals addressed two central issues arising from Hasan Malik Davis’s conviction for robbery of a person 60 years of age or older under NRS 200.380(1) and the related sentencing statute NRS 193.167(1). First, Davis challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. Second, he argued that the district court applied an incorrect legal test when denying his motion to set aside the verdict and enter a judgment of acquittal under NRS 175.381(2). The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and clarified the proper standard governing district‐court review of such motions.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals held that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the combination of direct and circumstantial evidence—namely the victim’s testimony, a firefighter’s eyewitness account of the assault, and the discovery of the victim’s property on Davis immediately after the attack—was sufficient for a rational juror to find the elements of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt.
The appellate court confirmed that the district court applied the correct sufficiency‐of‐evidence test drawn from Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), and Nevada precedent (Evans v. State, 112 Nev. 1172 (1996); Kassa v. State, 137 Nev. 150 (2021)).
The Court rejected Davis’s contention that the district court improperly relied on the jury’s verdict as evidence, emphasizing instead the court’s independent evaluation of the record against the high bar set by NRS 175.381(2).
Accordingly, Davis’s conviction for robbery of a person aged 60 or older was affirmed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Judgment extensively cites established authorities on sufficiency‐of‐evidence review and the standard for district‐court entry of a judgment of acquittal:

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979): Established that appellate courts must ask whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Evans v. State, 112 Nev. 1172, 926 P.2d 265 (1996): Defined insufficient evidence as failing to meet the “minimum threshold of evidence” even if believed by the jury, and tied NRS 175.381(2) to this threshold concept.
Kassa v. State, 137 Nev. 150, 485 P.3d 750 (2021): Reinforced that NRS 175.381(2) imposes a demanding standard; if any evidence could support conviction, the verdict stands.
Mitchell v. State, 124 Nev. 807, 192 P.3d 721 (2008) and Walker v. State, 91 Nev. 724, 542 P.2d 438 (1975): Confirm that appellate review is coextensive with the jury’s province to weigh evidence and judge credibility.
Washington v. State, 132 Nev. 655, 376 P.3d 802 (2016) and Buchanan v. State, 119 Nev. 201, 69 P.3d 694 (2003): Hold that circumstantial evidence alone may suffice to sustain a criminal conviction.
Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 624 P.2d 20 (1981): Emphasizes deference to the jury’s assessment where substantial evidence supports the verdict.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds along two parallel lines:

Sufficiency of the Evidence. Under NRS 175.381(2), a trial judge may set aside a verdict only if the prosecution fails to produce the minimum threshold of evidence upon which a conviction could rest. The appellate court reviews that denial by viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the State and asking whether any rational jury could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, direct evidence of Davis’s assault (testimony by the victim and firefighter) coupled with the immediate discovery of the victim’s lanyard, ID card and money in Davis’s pocket constituted both direct and circumstantial proof of force, violence and the taking of property.
Correctness of the Review Standard. Davis argued the district court conflated its review with deference to the jury. The Court of Appeals found otherwise: the district court expressly articulated the Jackson standard—focusing on whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the elements beyond reasonable doubt”—and detailed the evidentiary facts supporting denial of the motion. The mere coincidence that the standard echoes the jury’s verdict does not transform deference into blind acceptance. The district court performed its independent sufficiency check, as required by law.

3. Impact

This decision reaffirms critical principles in Nevada criminal procedure:

District courts must apply the Jackson rational‐basis test when evaluating motions under NRS 175.381(2) and must articulate their independent assessment of the record.
Circumstantial evidence linking the defendant to both the use of force and immediate possession of the victim’s property can satisfy the threshold for robbery, including offenses against elderly victims.
Juries retain primary authority to weigh credibility and evidence; district‐court judgments of acquittal should be rare absent a total evidentiary void.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Judgment of Acquittal (NRS 175.381(2)): A court order setting aside a jury’s guilty verdict and entering a not‐guilty judgment when the prosecution’s evidence is legally insufficient to sustain the conviction.
“Light Most Favorable to the Prosecution”: An appellate‐review principle requiring courts to assume every fact and inference supporting the verdict; doubts and conflicts are resolved in the State’s favor.
Circumstantial Evidence: Evidence that relies on inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—e.g., finding stolen property on a defendant shortly after the crime implies guilt even absent a witness to the taking.
“Rational Trier of Fact”: A hypothetical reasonable jury; the standard measures whether any such rational fact‐finder, considering all the evidence, could convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

Davis v. State clarifies and reinforces Nevada’s high standard for denying a judgment of acquittal. By upholding the district court’s use of the Jackson rational‐basis test and its deference to jury determinations, the decision preserves the integrity of both jury fact‐finding and judicial oversight. For criminal practitioners and trial judges, the case stands as a reminder that only in the rare instance of a complete evidentiary void will a conviction be set aside post-verdict. In all other cases, substantial direct or circumstantial evidence of guilt will withstand a sufficiency challenge.