There was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for child abuse, neglect, or endangerment based on the fact that defendant took the child and hid her while police searched for him, which affirmatively prevented anyone else from caring for, or being responsible for, the child. Anderson v. State, 132 Nev. 939, 2016 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 109 (Nev. Ct. App. 2016).
Evidence overwhelmingly supported defendant’s convictions for child abuse, neglect, or endangerment; a rational juror could reasonably conclude that he exposed children to physical danger by discharging a firearm several times in a vehicle with the children present and, in an infant’s case, seated immediately adjacent to the victim. Newson v. State, 449 P.3d 1247, 135 Nev. Adv. Rep. 50, 2019 Nev. LEXIS 62 (Nev. 2019), sub. op., op. withdrawn, 462 P.3d 246, 136 Nev. Adv. Rep. 22, 2020 Nev. LEXIS 22 (Nev. 2020).
Rational juror could find defendant guilty of two counts of child abuse, neglect or endangerment in violation of this provision, because the jury could reasonably infer that defendant was responsible for both children’s welfare at the time of the shooting, and by shooting the victim in a moving car while she was seated next to the two children, defendant subjected the children to “harmful behavior” that was “terrorizing” or “emotionally traumatic” and therefore amounted to negligent treatment or maltreatment. Newson v. State, 462 P.3d 246, 136 Nev. Adv. Rep. 22, 2020 Nev. LEXIS 22 (Nev. 2020).
Where defendant sexually and physically abused children for over a decade, there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction for abuse, neglect or endangerment via sexual abuse because he, his wife, and his ex-wife acted together in a conspiracy to repeatedly abuse their own children until the crimes were finally reported to police. Defendant’s wife testimony that she continued to participate and did not report the crimes due to fear and video evidence of them discussing the sex acts that they wished to perform upon the children was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that there was an agreement between them. Sena v. State, 510 P.3d 731, 138 Nev. Adv. Rep. 34, 2022 Nev. LEXIS 33 (Nev. 2022).