Boley v. State, 5697
| Decision Date | 14 July 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 5697,5697 |
| Citation | 85 Nev. 466,456 P.2d 447 |
| Parties | Bonita Nadine BOLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from a conviction of grand larceny. We affirm the conviction.
Appellant and Reianne Melody Boley were charged with taking checks of the face value of $781.00 and currency in the amount of $39.00 from the open safe in the office of Dr. William Mason, Fallon, Nevada, on July 27, 1967. During the joint trial of both defendants, Reianne changed her plea to guilty and testified as a state's witness. The trial continued against appellant. A jury found her guilty. She appeals the conviction.
During the trial, the state offered in evidence 21 checks totaling in face value $781.00. All bore the stamped endorsement of William L. Mason, M.D. Other proof was offered by the state that the checks were received in payment of accounts receivable and were unpaid on the date stolen.
Also during trial, appellant was cross-examined before the jury as to alleged prior felony convictions. She denied any such convictions. The state, though armed with FBI rap sheets and some additional information regarding her alleged past felony convictions obtained through communications with authorities in another state, was not then in possession of exemplified copies of conviction records.
The court, on motion of the state, granted a continuance to allow the state to obtain exemplified copies of two alleged past felony convictions. When the records were obtained, both convictions were found to be for misdemeanors only.
The district attorney explained that such misinformation as to appellant's past criminal record had occurred through inaccuracy of the 'rap sheet' and incorrect information obtained through communication with officials of a sister state. Because considerable discussion of appellant's alleged felony record had occurred before the jury, appellant moved for a mistrial. That motion was denied by the trial judge, who then made the following statement to the jury: 'Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, during the time that you were absent from the courtroom disclosure has been made to the court and the defendant which in our opinion requires some word of explanation and some instruction to you.
'You will recall that at our last court session last week, before this long recess was taken, questions were asked of the defendant concerning her prior conviction of a felony.
'I feel it proper to instruct you that the defendant in this case, BONITA NADINE BOLEY, has not ever been convicted of a felony and accordingly you are required to disregard and set aside the questions that were asked of her. * * *'
The issues before us in the appeal are these:
I. Was the evidence as to the value of the stolen checks sufficient to support a conviction for grand larceny?
II. Did the questioning of appellant by the prosecution concerning her alleged prior felony convictions constitute reversible error?
1. Grand larceny is the stealing of property of the value of $100.00 or more. NRS 205.220. In this case, since only $39.00 in cash was taken, it was necessary to prove the value of the stolen checks.
NRS 205.260, concerning larceny of negotiable instruments reads as follows: 'Bonds, promissory notes, bank notes, bills of exchange, or other bills, orders, drafts, checks, receipts or certificates, or warrants for or concerning money, goods or property, due, or to become due, or to be delivered, or any public security issued by the United States or by this state, and any deed or writing containing a conveyance of land or valuable contract, in force, or any release or defeasance, or any other instrument whatever, shall be considered personal goods, of which larceny may be committed; and the money due thereon, or secured thereby and remaining unsatisfied, or which, in any event or contingency, might be collected thereon, or the value of the property transferred or affected thereby, as the case may be, shall be deemed the value of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warren v. State
...(3d ed.1940)). 35. Yllas, 112 Nev. at 867, 920 P.2d at 1005. 36. Revuelta, 86 Nev. at 226-27, 467 P.2d at 107. 37. Boley v. State, 85 Nev. 466, 470, 456 P.2d 447, 449 (1969) ("There can be only one irrefutable documentation of the conviction and that is from the exemplified copy of the 38. ......
-
Simmons v. State, 42716
...unless the witness thus attacked can be shown to have had or waived counsel in the proceedings certified by the record.' In Boley v. State, 456 P.2d 447 (Nev.) which involved the impeachment of an accused by the use of prior convictions but did not necessarily involve the Burgett rationale,......
-
Otterbeck v. Lamb
... ... III. Did Instruction No. 18 unfairly and erroneously state the law of the right-of-way of a driver upon a public highway? ... I. Instruction ... ...
-
Perez v. State
...erred by allowing the State to impeach the witness without providing a certified copy of his felony conviction. See Boley v. State, 85 Nev. 466, 470, 456 P.2d 447, 449 (1969) (“There can be only one irrefutable documentation of the conviction and that is from the exemplified copy of the jud......