Cooper (Don) v. State ( 2014 )

 RS testified that, while Cooper rode behind him as a
passenger on a jet ski, Cooper reached through the straps of RS's life vest
to hold on for support and rubbed RS's sides and that RS then felt
Cooper's erect penis pressing into his back. In contrast, RS's mother
testified that Cooper had held onto her life vest only very lightly when he
rode behind her as a passenger earlier and that the jet ski was big enough
that Cooper's chest was not touching her back when riding with her. RS's
further testimony provides additional context that supports finding this
sexual contact to be intentional. RS testified that, after feeling the
erection pressing into his back, Cooper asked, "is this okay?" and grabbed
RS's genitals. Additionally, RS testified that Cooper asked that they turn
around to ride out farther when RS changed direction to return the jet ski
to shore.
The jury could reasonably infer from the evidence presented
that Cooper intentionally rubbed his erect clothed penis against RS's lower
back. See NRS 201.210; Young v. State, 109 Nev. 205, 215, 849 P.2d 336,
343 (1993) (concluding that a conviction under NRS 201.210 requires that
the sexual conduct be intentional); cf. Rose v. State, 123 Nev. 194, 203, 163
P.3d 408, 414 (2007) (noting that victim testimony alone may suffice to
uphold a conviction in sexual assault cases). It is for the jury to determine
the weight and credibility to give witness testimony, and the jury's verdict
will not be disturbed on appeal where, as here, substantial evidence
supports the verdict. See Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 73, 624 P.2d 20, 20
(1981); see also McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1)4,A e
Having considered Cooper's contention and concluded that it is
without merit, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 2
Hardesty
Douglas Cherry
cc: Hon. Jerome T. Tao, District Judge
Kirk T. Kennedy
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
2 Tothe extent that Cooper suggests that the district court's use of
inappropriate language during a bench conference constituted error, he
did not object below and has not demonstrated that relief is warranted.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A cilet),