## Facts

- The defendant, Williams, was prosecuted by the State of Nevada in a criminal case that resulted in a jury verdict of guilt.
- The prosecution’s theory connected Williams to the charged offenses through evidence presented at trial, including witness testimony and other proof offered to establish the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Williams disputed the State’s proof and challenged aspects of the proceedings, arguing that errors in the trial process affected the fairness and reliability of the verdict.
- After conviction, Williams sought appellate review, requesting reversal or other relief based on alleged legal error and insufficiency or unreliability of the evidence.
- The case reached the Nevada Supreme Court for review of the conviction and the asserted errors.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to permit a rational jury to find Williams guilty beyond a reasonable doubt under the charged statutes.
2. Whether alleged trial-level errors (including evidentiary rulings and the conduct of the proceedings) required reversal because they violated governing law or deprived Williams of a fair trial.
3. Whether any identified error, if present, was harmless in light of the overall record and the strength of the proof supporting the verdict.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court concluded that the record contained sufficient evidence for the jury to find the elements of the offenses proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court rejected Williams’s claims of reversible trial error, holding that the challenged rulings did not warrant a new trial on the record presented.
- To the extent any arguable error existed, the court determined it did not affect the verdict and therefore did not justify reversal.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate courts review the sufficiency of the evidence by asking whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Trial courts have discretion over many evidentiary and procedural rulings; an appellant must show both legal error and resulting prejudice to obtain reversal.
- Not every mistake requires a new trial; if an error did not contribute to the verdict, the conviction may be affirmed under harmless-error review.
- Credibility determinations and the weighing of competing inferences from the evidence are primarily for the jury, and appellate courts generally will not reweigh the proof.

## Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court upheld Williams’s conviction, finding the evidence sufficient and concluding that the asserted trial errors did not warrant reversal because they either were not errors on this record or did not prejudice the verdict.


Williams v. State, 151 P.3d 460 (Nev. 2006)