Sheriff, Clark County v. Larsgaard
| Decision Date | 04 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 12349,12349 |
| Citation | 96 Nev. 486,611 P.2d 625 |
| Parties | SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, Nevada, Appellant, v. Dennis L. LARSGAARD, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
After the grand jury indicted the respondent for murder, respondent petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition was granted on the ground that the state failed to establish the corpus delicti of the crime and thus there existed no probable cause to hold the accused for trial.
According to the testimony and evidence presented to the grand jury, Allen Simmons disappeared from Boulder City about November 13, 1975. He was not seen or heard from again. His mother, brothers, and several acquaintances testified that he usually kept in close contact with them and that such a disappearance was extremely unusual for Simmons.
A forensic pathologist testified that he examined about thirty bone fragments of a human skull which were found in the desert near Boulder City and that the bones exhibited three bullet holes. However, the pathologist could not definitely state the cause of death. A police detective testified that a shoe was found close to the bone fragments. This shoe was identified by Simmons' brothers and acquaintances as a shoe similar to one which Simmons was known to have worn.
The grand jury was also presented with the testimony of a police officer to whom respondent made incriminating statements. These statements indicated that respondent and an accomplice shot and killed Simmons in the desert near Boulder City. The statements of an accomplice were also presented to the grand jury. The state concedes that the statements of the accomplice were inadmissible.
In order to hold an accused for trial there must be probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused has committed it. Azbill v. State, 84 Nev. 345, 440 P.2d 1014 (1968). In determining whether a crime has been committed two elements, i. e., the corpus delicti, must be established. The two elements of the corpus delicti of murder are (1) the fact of death, and (2) a criminal agency of another responsible for that death. Hicks v. Sheriff, 86 Nev. 67, 464 P.2d 462 (1970); Azbill v. State, supra. Beasley v. Lamb, 79 Nev. 78, 378 P.2d 524 (1963). See generally W. LaFave and A. Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law § 4 (1972). Once the corpus delicti is determined to have been proved by lawful evidence, confessions and admissions may be considered in establishing whether it was the accused who was the criminal agency causing the death. Azbill v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Domingues v. State
...determining whether a crime has been committed, two elements, i.e., the corpus delicti, must be established." Sheriff v. Larsgaard, 96 Nev. 486, 488, 611 P.2d 625, 626 (1980). "The corpus delicti of murder are (1) the fact of death, and (2) a criminal agency of another responsible for that ......
-
State, Dept. of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety v. McLeod
...the admissions of a defendant may be considered in deciding whether the defendant committed the crime. See Sheriff v. Larsgaard, 96 Nev. 486, 488, 611 P.2d 625, 626 (1980). Because this case is a civil proceeding, no crime has been charged. Accordingly, the corpus delicti rule does not appl......
-
Frutiger v. State
...and that the corpus delicti was established solely by circumstantial evidence. In Weeks we relied heavily on Sheriff v. Larsgaard, 96 Nev. 486, 488, 611 P.2d 625, 626-27 (1980), for the proposition that proof of the corpus delicti may be demonstrated entirely by direct evidence, a combinati......
-
Sheriff, Washoe County v. Middleton
...accident or suicide, then the evidence as to corpus delicti is sufficient to bind the defendant over for trial. Sheriff v. Larsgaard, 96 Nev. 486, 489, 611 P.2d 625, 627 (1980). At trial, the jury must weigh all the relevant evidence presented, and must conclude that corpus delicti has been......