Biederstadt v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: Biederstadt v. State, 545 P.2d 202, 92 Nev. 80 (Nev. 1976)
• Decision Date: 28 January 1976
• Docket Number: No. 8073,8073
• Parties: Roy C. BIEDERSTADT and Allen L. Hurt, Appellants, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.

Page 202

545 P.2d 202

92 Nev. 80

Roy C. BIEDERSTADT and Allen L. Hurt, Appellants, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.

No. 8073.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Jan. 28, 1976.

William N. Dunseath, Public Defender, and Thomas R. Brennan, Deputy Public Defender, Reno, for appellants.

Larry R. Hicks, Dist. Atty., and Kathleen M. Wall, Asst. Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., Reno, for respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Conceding guilt of the offenses charged to them, the appellants, nonetheless, seek to have their convictions annulled for reasons which they assert precluded a fair and impartial trial. Their assigned errors possess no merit.

The record simply does not support the contention of the appellant Hurt that the prosecutor offered evidence of Hurt's bad character or prior infractions of the law. Nor did the court err in instructing the jury that one who unlawfully enters a house shall be deemed to have entered with the intent to commit grand larceny. NRS 205.065; Fritz v. State, 86 Nev. 655, 474 P.2d 377 (1970); White v. State, 83 Nev. 292, 429 P.2d 55 (1967). Finally, the prosecutor's statement during summation to the jury, footnoted below, ¹ did not amount to a comment upon the failure of Hurt to testify within the intendment of the doctrine of Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965). In Moss v. State, 88 Nev. 19, 492 P.2d 1307 (1972), we noted that the prosecutor's 'comments were factually correct, and did not refer to the accused specifically. The State's case may be contradicted by witnesses other than the accused if such witnesses exist.' The same observation applies with...