Greene v. State
| Decision Date | 18 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 10887,10887 |
| Citation | 612 P.2d 686,96 Nev. 555 |
| Parties | Georgia Sue GREENE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
A jury convicted appellant of violating NRS 453.321, which provided in material part:
On March 13, 1975, police officer James Thomas, working undercover, went with an informant to a Las Vegas bar to "buy" narcotics. The informant went inside while the officer remained in his automobile. Within minutes, the informant emerged with appellant. The officer, feigning withdrawal symptoms, asked appellant to purchase heroin for him. The officer testified appellant said that for her trouble she expected to be "turned on," i. e. to get part of any heroin she bought. The appellant testified she agreed to buy for the officer because she, as a heroin addict, felt sorry for him.
The appellant, the informant, and the officer made several stops. At each, appellant went into a building and returned without narcotics. Finally, she returned and quoted the officer a price. She took the money, returned to the building, then emerged with three balloons she said contained heroin. The officer testified she gave him two balloons, keeping the third, saying she was keeping one for her trouble. The appellant testified that she handed the officer all three balloons, but that later he gave her one. Testimony at appellant's preliminary hearing and trial indicated that the informant had assisted the officer to "turn" his own charges, then pending.
The appellant served subpoenas duces tecum seeking all personnel records pertaining to Officer Thomas. The trial court quashed the subpoenas when appellant's counsel acknowledged that he was on a fishing expedition, merely hoping to find information to impeach the officer. The court also denied appellant's request for the officer's home address.
Appellant contends it was reversible error for the court to deny him the residence address of the police officer and personnel files, which might have led to impeachment material. Appellant cites Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 51 S.Ct. 218, 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931) and Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129, 88 S.Ct. 748, 19 L.Ed.2d 956 (1968). We first consider whether appellant was denied an opportunity to cross-examine Officer Thomas effectively. The trial court sustained the State's objection to the question,
In Alford v. United States, cited above, the Supreme Court wrote 282 U.S. at 694, 51 S.Ct. at 220:
The extent of cross-examination with respect to an appropriate subject of inquiry is within the sound discretion of the trial court. It may exercise a reasonable judgment in determining when the subject is exhausted. (Citations omitted.) But no obligation is imposed on the court, such as that suggested below, to protect a witness from being discredited on cross-examination, short of an attempted invasion of his constitutional protection from self incrimination, properly invoked. There is a duty to protect him from questions which go beyond the bounds of proper cross-examination merely to harass, annoy or humiliate him. (Citations omitted.) But no such case is presented here. The trial court cut off in limine all inquiry on a subject with respect to which the defense was entitled to a reasonable cross examination. This was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial error. (Citations omitted.)
282 U.S. at 694, 51 S.Ct. at 220. The witness in Alford was in federal custody. The question, "Where do you live?" was an appropriate preliminary to cross-examination, and was an essential step in identifying the witness with his environment. The purpose of the question was to show, by such facts as proper examination might develop, that his testimony was biased because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McConnell v. State
...on the appellant to provide this court with an adequate record enabling this court to review assignments of error. Greene v. State, 96 Nev. 555, 558, 612 P.2d 686, 688 (1980); Lee v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 379, 380, 455 P.2d 623, 624 14. In Means, we held that because Means had signed his plea ag......
-
Castillo v. Gittere, Case No. 2:04-cv-00868-RCJ-GWF
...simply asserts that they did not properly inform the jury on how to consider the penalty evidence. [Footnote: See Greene v. State, 96 Nev. 555, 558, 612 P.2d 686, 688 (1980) ("The burden to make a proper appellate record rests on the appellant."); see also Jacobs v. State, 91 Nev. 155, 158,......
-
Alvarado v. Superior Court
...(1976) 69 Mich.App. 322 ; State v. Caldwell (1975) 303 Minn. 297 ; State v. Glass (Mo.Ct.App.1977) 554 S.W.2d 426, 428; Greene v. State (1980) 96 Nev. 555 ; State v. Vandebogart (1994) 139 N.H. 145 ; People v. Stanard (1977) 42 N.Y.2d 74 [396 N.Y.S.2d 825, 830-832, 365 N.E.2d 857, 861-864];......
-
Rimer v. State
...of the record essential to determination of issues raised in appellant's appeal.’ ” (quoting NRAP 30(b)(3) )); Greene v. State, 96 Nev. 555, 558, 612 P.2d 686, 688 (1980) ( “The burden to make a proper appellate record rests on appellant.”).J. Prosecutorial misconduct Rimer claims that the ......