Hicks v. Sheriff, Clark County, 5986
| Citation | 86 Nev. 67,464 P.2d 462 |
| Decision Date | 27 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 5986,5986 |
| Parties | Kenneth Harvey HICKS, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nevada |
Appellant was charged with the murder of Glenn E. Christiernsson. After an extensive preliminary examination the charge was dismissed because the state had failed to prove the corpus delicti and has also failed to prove that Christiernsson's death was caused by the criminal agency of the appellant.
Thereafter, the state filed a petition in the district court for leave to file an information against the appellant under NRS 173.035(2), 1 attaching to the petition the transcript of the testimony taken at the preliminary examination. Also attached to the petition was an affidavit of a Ronald Elton King, who had been a cellmate of the appellant in the Clark County jail. The affidavit of King alleged that the appellant, while in jail, had admitted to him, the killing of Christiernsson. There was also attached to the petition an affidavit of a deputy district attorney which recited that the appellant had been discharged after preliminary examination, but alleged that the testimony adduced was sufficient compliance with NRS 173.035(2), and that it contained sufficient facts to justify the issuance of an information against the appellant.
The district court granted leave to file the information; the appellant was rearrested and then applied for a writ of habeas corpus which was denied by the district court.
This appeal is taken from the order denying the writ of habeas corpus. We reverse the order of the district court.
Counsel for both the state and the appellant urge this court to determine this appeal on the question of the state's compliance or noncompliance with the provisions of NRS 173.035(2), as well as the question of its constitutionality.
We do not reach either the question of the degree of compliance necessary to enable the state to take advantage of that statute nor the question of its constitutionality.
The only question before us is whether the facts laid before the district court, prior to the filing of the information, established a corpus delicti and probable cause to believe that the appellant committed the crime as charged.
The record of the preliminary examination is absolutely devoid of proof of the corpus delicti to support the filing of an information charging the crime of murder. The appellant was properly discharged by the justice of the peace on the evidence presented at that hearing.
Except in the affidavit of King, we find no testimony or other evidence about the cause of death of Christiernsson. All that we find relating to his death is testimony that his body was found on December 6, 1967, in the desert; that it was identified by a military service identification tag and a thumb print, and that the body was partially clothed. There is absolutely no evidence before either the justice's court or the district court that a criminal agency of the appellant or anyone else was responsible for the alleged victim's death.
The affidavit of the appellant's fellow prisoner to the effect that the appellant admitted to him that he had murdered the victim, does not supply the proof necessary to show that death was caused by criminal means. Only after the corpus delicti has been proved by lawful evidence may confessions and admissions be considered in establishing probable cause to show that the accused was the criminal agency causing the death. Azbill v. State, 84 Nev. 345, 440 P.2d 1014 (1968). In re Kelly, 28 Nev. 491, 83 P. 223 (1905). In Kelly, supra, this court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Laird
...v. Henderson , 409 F.3d 1293, 1300 (11th Cir. 2005) ; Frutiger v. State , 111 Nev. 1385, 907 P.2d 158, 161 (1995) ; Hicks v. Sheriff , 86 Nev. 67, 464 P.2d 462, 465 (1970) ; Azbill v. State , 84 Nev. 345, 440 P.2d 1014, 1015-19 (1968). ¶70 We have never before required expert medical testim......
-
Domingues v. State
...of murder are (1) the fact of death, and (2) a criminal agency of another responsible for that death." Id. (citing Hicks v. Sheriff, 86 Nev. 67, 464 P.2d 462 (1970)). According to the corpus delicti rule, only after the corpus delicti is determined by lawful evidence may the defendant's adm......
-
West v. State
...Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). 5. 111 Nev. 1385, 907 P.2d 158 (1995). 6. 86 Nev. 67, 464 P.2d 462 (1970). 7. 84 Nev. 345, 440 P.2d 1014 (1968). 8. Frutiger, 111 Nev. at 1386-88, 907 P.2d at 158-60. 9. Id. at 1386, 907 P.2d at 159. 10. Id. 11. ......
-
Meegan v. State
...and that death resulted from the criminal agency of another and not from natural causes, accident, or suicide. Hicks v. Sheriff, 86 Nev. 67, 70, 464 P.2d 462, 464 (1970). We conclude that the evidence presented at trial, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, is sufficient for......