Anderson v. State, 8264
| Court | Supreme Court of Nevada |
| Citation | 544 P.2d 1200,92 Nev. 21 |
| Docket Number | No. 8264,8264 |
| Parties | Lawrence ANDERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 23 January 1976 |
Morgan D. Harris, Public Defender, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Robert List, Atty. Gen., Carson City, George E. Holt, Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.
After a jury trial, appellant stands convicted of rape and the infamous crime against nature. Appellant here contends: (1) the district court erred in not suppressing an identification by the victim; (2) the district court erred in denying appellant's motion to prohibit impeachment by using prior felony convictions; and, (3) the mandatory life sentence for committing an infamous crime against nature constitutes cruel and/or unusual punishment violative of the Federal and Nevada Constitutions. We disagree.
The evidence adduced at trial shows that appellant forced his way into the victim's apartment, forcibly committed the charged offenses, and threatened to kill her if she reported the incident. On the day of the crime, the police brought appellant back to the scene where he was identified by the victim.
1. Appellant alleges that he was entitled to counsel at the crime scene identification, and that the identification was so suggestive as to violate due process standards.
The crime scene identification was prior to any prosecution whatever. Thus, the claimed right to counsel does not exist. Brown v. State, 91 Nev. 777, 542 P.2d 1068 (1975). Cf. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972).
We also reject the contention that the identfification violates due process. Cf. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967). After viewing four or five other men of similar build and dress, the victim identified appellant. The State demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, both at the evidentiary hearing and at trial, that the victim's identification was based on observations independent of the crime scene identification. Thus, assuming improprieties in the process through which appellant originally was shown to the victim, and by which due process could have been offended, it appears the trial court identification was free from taint in the instant case. Cf. Brown v. State, cited above; Baker v. State, 88 Nev. 369, 498 P.2d 1310 (1972).
2. During trial, the judge excused the jury to entertain appellant's motion to suppress prior felony convictions in the event appellant decided to testify. Prior felony convictions may be used to impeach a defendant who takes the stand. NRS 50.095; Edwards v. State, 90 Nev. 255, 524 P.2d 328 (1974). However, prior felony convictions should not be admitted if their 'probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues or of misleading the jury.' NRS 48.035(1). After argument of counsel, the court excluded a 1963 conviction as too remote but informed appellant he would admit 1967 convictions for attempted rape and aggravated battery. The determination of whether to admit or exclude such evidence rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless manifestly wrong. Brown v. State, 81 Nev. 397, 404 P.2d 428 (1965). We perceive no abuse of discretion.
3. NRS 201.190 provides in pertinent part:
'1. Except as provided in subsection 2, every...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wesley v. State
...not manifestly wrong in ruling that Wesley's prior convictions could be admitted if Wesley testified. See id.; Anderson v. State, 92 Nev. 21, 23, 544 P.2d 1200, 1201 (1976). 3. Request for a continuance of After the State prevailed on three motions to endorse names, the witness list for Wes......
-
Burton v. State
...convictions] rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless manifestly wrong.” Anderson v. State, 92 Nev. 21, 23, 544 P.2d 1200, 1201 (1976). Here, Burton's counsel admitted that it would have been impossible for Burton's cousin to commit the murder becaus......
-
Reese v. State
..."rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless manifestly wrong." Anderson v. State, 92 Nev. 21, 23, 544 P.2d 1200, 1201 (1976). Accord, Nester v. State, 75 Nev. 41, 334 P.2d 524 The second instance cited by Reese is the testimony by state's witness Saund......
-
Kelly v. State
...value is substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues or misleading the jury. Anderson v. State, 92 Nev. 21, 23, 544 P.2d 1200, 1201 (1976); see also Givens v. State, 99 Nev. 50, 52-53, 657 P.2d 97, 99 (1983). Moreover, as this court stated in Givens, "[w]e re......
-
Narrative and jurisprudence in state courts: the example of constitutional challenges to sex conduct regulation.
...examinations before trial to determine whether he was competent to stand trial and represent himself at trial). Anderson v. State, 544 P2d 1200 (Nev. 1976) (adult male convicted of rape and sodomy in the course of a Arnett v. State, 291 N.E.2d 376 (Ind. Ct. App. 1973) (defendant charged wit......