argues that it functioned as an order granting a motion to acquit and is appealable pursuant to NRS 177.015(1)(b). Appellant also asserts that because it cannot proceed on the original charge or file new charges, the practical effect of the district court's order is to acquit respondent of the original offense.

An acquittal is generally defined as a ruling that the State has provided insufficient evidence to establish a defendant's criminal liability for an offense. Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. „ 133 S. Ct. 1069, 1074-75 (2013). Here, the district court did not make any findings regarding the sufficiency of the evidence and its ruling did not relate to respondent's guilt or innocence. Therefore, we conclude that the district court's order does not function as an order granting a motion to acquit.

Because no statute or court rule allows the State to appeal from an amended judgment of conviction, and appellant has failed to demonstrate that the amended judgment of conviction is appealable pursuant to NRS 177.015(1)(b), we conclude that we lack jurisdiction, and we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Pickering

Citjatreter27" J.

Parraguirre Stitta

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 1947A cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Clark County Public Defender Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 19474 AgeD