Dixon v. State
| Decision Date | 28 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 5170,5170 |
| Citation | 83 Nev. 120,424 P.2d 100 |
| Parties | Robert Lee DIXON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Foley, Garner & Shoemarker, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen., Carson City, George E. Franklin, Jr., Dist. Atty., and James D. Santini, Deputy Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.
Robert Lee Dixon was convicted of attempted grand larceny and thereafter adjudged to be an habitual criminal. He was sentenced to the Nevada State Prison for not less than one year nor more than seven years on the first count and for a period of not less than ten years nor more than ten years on the habitual criminal count. Dixon on appeals from the conviction.
At the hearing before this court Dixon's counsel abandoned all but one assignment of error. He contends only that the State failed to prove that the crime was committed in Clark County, Nevada, as alleged in the indictment.
Dixon was accused of attempting to rifle the cash register of a Safeway Store in Clark County, Nevada. No testimony nor evidence directly referred to the city or county in which the store was located. However, the store manager testified that he resided in Las Vegas, that at the time of the trial (although not at the time of the offense) he was the Safeway Store manager of North Las Vegas, an adjoining city to the city of Las Vegas, and that on the date of this offense, October 19, 1965, he was employed at Store No. 335 on Tonopah Highway where the crime took place. The produce manager testified that at the time of the offense he was employed at Safeway Store No. 335, 701 Tonopah Highway, and the Safeway Store meat cutter likewise so testified. The defendant himself testified that he lived on 109 Frederick, Las Vegas, Nevada, and that he knew that the incident in which he was involved occurred in 'the Safeway Store on or about October 19, 1965.'
1. The general rule governing proof of venue is that there need be no positive testimony that the violation occurred at a specific place, but it is sufficient if it can be concluded from the evidence as a whole that the act was committed at the place alleged in the indictment. United States v. Budge, 359 F.2d 732 (Ill.1966); State v. Glasscock, 76 N.M. 367, 415 P.2d 56 (1966); Holsonbake v. State, 416 P.2d 178 (Okl.Cr.1966); State v. Gordon, 3 Ariz.App. 193, 412 P.2d 875 (1966); State v. Crowe, 196 Kan. 622, 414 P.2d 50 (1966); Tate v. People, 125 Colo. 527, 247 P.2d 665 (1952); People v. Megladdery, 40 Cal.App.2d 748, 106 P.2d 84 (1940). It is the duty of the prosecutor to prove venue. Venue may be established by circumstantial evidence and need not be shown beyond a reasonable doubt. Turner v. State, 285 P.2d 459 (Okl.Cr.1955); Swift v. State, 92 Okl.Cr. 43, 220 P.2d 300 (1950). (Smazal v. State, 31 Wis.2d 360, 142 N.W.2d 808 (1966), compels the degree of proof to be beyond a reasonable doubt.)
It is better practice to prove venue by direct evidence and it is unfortunate that the time of courts must be taken up with argument and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Allen
...v. State, 204 So.2d 523, 524 (Fla.Dist.App.1967) (per curiam); State v. Twiggs, 553 S.W.2d 69, 70 (Mo.App.1977); Dixon v. State, 83 Nev. 120, 121-22, 424 P.2d 100, 100-01 (1967); Voran v. State, 536 P.2d 1322, 1324 (Okl.Cr.App.1975); State v. Brown, 97 R.I. 95, 100, 196 A.2d 138, 141 (1963)......
-
Guzman v. Second Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.
...State must prove venue by a preponderance of the evidence, and it may do so with circumstantial evidence. Dixon v. State , 83 Nev. 120, 122, 424 P.2d 100, 101 (1967) ; cf. Grant v. State , 117 Nev. 427, 435, 24 P.3d 761, 766 (2001) (holding that criminal intent can be inferred from conduct)......
-
Caron v. State
...... [v]enue may be established by circumstantial evidence and need not be shown beyond a reasonable doubt.” Dixon v. State, 83 Nev. 120, 122, 424 P.2d 100, 101 (1967). Caron urges this court to overturn its prior jurisprudence and hold that venue must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We......
-
Warden, Nevada State Prison v. Peters
...of the sentence, Lisby v. State, 82 Nev. 183, 414 P.2d 592 (1966); Osborne v. State, 82 Nev. 342, 418 P.2d 812 (1966); Dixon v. State, 83 Nev. ---, 424 P.2d 100 (1967), but if the judgment of conviction for grand larceny is void the sentence for that crime automatically fails. The court is ......