Cosey v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 9171,9171 |
| Citation | 566 P.2d 83,93 Nev. 352 |
| Parties | Donnell COSEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appellant was convicted by jury of robbery, a violation of NRS 200.380, and, pursuant to NRS 193.165, received an enhanced sentence for use of a deadly weapon in the commission of that crime. 1 Here, he contends the district court erred by (1) refusing to give a proposed instruction, (2) refusing to allow his counsel to read from a court decision during final argument, (3) failing to grant a mistrial due to the prosecutor's remarks to the jury during closing argument, (4) admitting into evidence a hearsay statement, and (5) allowing the prosecutor to prejudicially question a witness. We perceive no error.
1. Since the law encompassed in his proposed instruction was substantially covered by other instructions given to the jury, appellant's first contention is without merit. Passarelli v. State, 93 Nev. ---, 564 P.2d 609 (1977 Adv. Opn. 98); Geary v. State, 91 Nev. 784, 544 P.2d 417 (1975).
2. Notwithstanding appellant's second contention to the contrary, the district court properly precluded defense counsel's attempt to read from a court decision during final argument to the jury. State v. Shelton, 71 Wash.2d 838, 431 P.2d 201 (1967).
3. Appellant next contends he should have been granted a mistrial because, during final argument, the prosecutor commented: "If you cut Donnell Cosey loose, you are going to be cutting loose a person who is going to be out there to rob you or I." This comment was improper. However, after the trial court declined to grant Cosey's motion for mistrial, defense counsel did not pursue the matter further and chose not to seek a corrective instruction. Under these circumstances and since the case is free from doubt, we conclude that error requiring a reversal did not occur. Moser v. State, 91 Nev. 809, 544 P.2d 424 (1975).
4. Appellant argues the district court erred by admitting a hearsay statement into evidence. However, he has failed to make any showing that he was prejudiced by the statement. "(E)rror may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, . . . " NRS 47.040(1).
5. Finally, appellant contends the court erred by permitting the State to ask one of its witnesses whether she had received any threats regarding her testimony. This contention arose after her credibility was placed in issue because of a prior inconsistent statement she had given to law enforcement officials. Although she testified otherwise, she told the court outside the presence of the jury that threats had indeed been made. "The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling him." NRS 50.075. Here, the prosecutor's examination was a proper inquiry into matters relevant to the witness's credibility and reasons why she was recanting her prior statement. See Thompson v. State, 541 P.2d 1328 (Okl.Cr.App.1975); People v. Pruitt, 155 Cal.App.2d 585, 318 P.2d 552 (1957); Luker v. State, 23 Ala.App. 379, 125 So. 788 (1930).
Affirme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wyoming Ins. Dept.
... ... ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Allstate Indemnity Company, Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Appellants (Petitioners), ... WYOMING INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, J.T ... ...
-
Bushnell v. State
... ... See Cosey v. State, 93 Nev. 352, 566 P.2d 83 (1977). Thus, although I agree that it was error to restrict appellant's cross-examination of Sloan, I disagree with that part of the majority opinion which dismisses the error as harmless ... The error was not harmless. The evidence was ... ...
-
Dias v. State, 10386
... ... Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 84 S.Ct. 229, 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963); Wolfe v. State, 95 Nev. 240, 591 P.2d 1155 (1979). A fortiori, admission of the testimony over appellant's objection based on the hearsay rule, which we review on the less strict standard applicable to nonconstitutional error, Cosey v. State, 93 Nev. 352, 566 P.2d 83 (1977); See State v. Jon, 46 Nev. 418, 430, 211 P. 676, 679 (1923), does not constitute reversible error ... We note that respondent was granted thirteen extensions of time to file its answering brief, which was ultimately filed three days after ... ...
-
McGuire v. State
... ... These comments were completely irrelevant to the issues in this case, and could only have impermissibly served to inflame the emotions of the jury, therefore clearly constituting misconduct [100 Nev. 157] on the prosecutor's part. 3 See Cosey v. State, 93 Nev. 352, 566 P.2d 83 (1977); Moser v. State, supra. Indeed, the state expressly concedes on appeal that the third comment, quoted above, was improper ... Oakes later commented to the jury that McGuire had "never testified before" in this case, and then questioned ... ...