Collins v. State
Decision Date | 12 January 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 6575,6575 |
Parties | Varner Ray COLLINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appellant Varner Ray Collins was tried to a jury and convicted of robbery. He has appealed from his judgment of conviction, and he has assigned numerous assignments of error, which we reject as meritless and, therefore, affirm the jury's verdict.
A lone gunman on July 14, 1969, held up the barmaid, Lou Ella Beavers, in the Huddle Bar located in Las Vegas. The gunman had a beer, minutes before the robbery. He then produced his weapon and demanded at gunpoint from Lou Ella the contents of the cash register, which she promptly handed to him. The robber left the premises. Lou Ella telephoned the police. The Clark County Sheriff's office responded to the call within minutes. The Sheriff's office had received an anonymous phone call that a late-model, light green Cougar automobile was seen in the vicinity of the crime. This information was radioed to Deputy Sheriff Alfred B. Leavitt while he was en route to the crime scene. When the sheriff's deputies arrived at the Huddle Bar, Lou Ella gave them a description of the robber. Deputy Sheriff Robert Roderick, in processing the scene of the crime, lifted latent fingerprints from the beer bottle and glass used by the robber.
The following day, July 15, the sheriff's deputies went to Collins's residence to arrest him on two pending felony charges (robbery and unlawful possession of narcotics) that had no connection with the Huddle Bar robbery. As the deputies approached Collins's residence, they noted in the driveway a vehicle that matched the description of the car that was reported in the vicinity of the Huddle Bar at the time of the robbery. Upon confronting Collins, the deputies also observed that his physical appearance matched Lou Ella's description of the robber. The deputies then arrested Collins and removed him to the county jail, where he was fingerprinted. The print from appellant's left index finger matched one of the prints taken by Deputy Roderick at the scene of the crime. The next day, July 16, the officers, upon their affidavit, obtained a warrant to search Collins's residence. They did so at once and found a weapon resembling the one used in the robbery. Collins was thereupon charged by criminal complaint with robbery and later, upon trial, was found guilty thereof.
First, Collins claims that his arrest was unlawful. His contention is untenable. At the time he was taken into custody, there were two outstanding warrants for Collins's arrest. It is true that at the time of the arrest the warrants were not in the deputies' possession, but the deputies knew of the existence of the warrants. 1
NRS 171.122, subsection 1, is controlling and dispositive of the arrest issue in this case. It provides:
The deputies, in an effort to find the weapon used in the robbery, searched Collins's residence after his arrest. They first obtained a warrant to do so, based on their affidavit that Collins's fingerprint matched one found at the scene of the crime. They found a weapon similar to the one used in the robbery, and it was introduced as evidence during the trial. Collins challenges the constitutionality of the use of the weapon as evidence, on the ground that the search was unlawful because his arrest that led to the taking of his fingerprints was unlawful. Since we have ruled otherwise, i.e., that his arrest was lawful, Collins's contention on this issue must fail. The weapon was properly received in evidence.
Immediately prior to trial, the learned trial judge noticed that Collins's name was misspelled in the information. 2 The judge suggested that the error be corrected on motion by the district attorney's office. This was done, and Collins claims that it resulted to his prejudice. NRS 173.095 provides:
'The court may permit an information to be amended at any time before verdict or finding if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.'
There was no prejudice at all to Collins in this case, and we find this assignment of error without merit. See Harris v. State, 86 Nev. 197, 466 P.2d 850 (1970).
Collins next complains that there was no member of his race on the jury that convicted him and therefore his conviction must be overturned. This may happen in a case. The absence of members of one's race on a petit jury may occur. If so, it is not error. It is the systematic exclusion of members of a race or class that spoils the makeup of the jury. Since the record is void of any such exclusion in this case, the error complained of is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burnside v. State
...in her identification testimony goes to the weight to be afforded to the testimony rather than its admissibility. Collins v. State, 88 Nev. 9, 13, 492 P.2d 991, 993 (1972) ; Page v. State, 88 Nev. 188, 193, 495 P.2d 356, 359 (1972). The jurors were aware of the alleged discrepancies in the ......
-
Bishop v. State
...is not permissible.' Cassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282, 286--287, 70 S.Ct. 629, 631, 94 L.Ed. 839 (1950). In Collins v. State, 88 Nev. 9, 13, 492 P.2d 991, 993 (1972), we said: 'The absence of members of one's race on a petit jury may occur. If so, it is not error. It is the systematic exclusi......
-
Wilkins v. State
...though irregular, is tantamount neither to the "systematic exclusion of members of a race or class," id.; see also Collins v. State, 88 Nev. 9, 13, 492 P.2d 991, 993 (1972), nor to the systematic exclusion of all individuals adhering to a particular philosophical or conscientious belief, se......
-
Turcios v. State
...testified for the State and Turcios did not demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the inability to recall P.B. See Collins v. State, 88 Nev. 9, 13-14, 492 P.2d 991, 993 (1972). Sufficiency of the evidence Turcios argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. We disag......