Ex parte Ralls, s. 3822
| Decision Date | 10 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | 3824,Nos. 3822,3823,s. 3822 |
| Citation | 288 P.2d 450,71 Nev. 276 |
| Parties | Application of Edward RALLS for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. STATE of Nevada, Appellant, v. Edward RALLS, Respondent. Application of James Paul McKENNA for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. STATE of Nevada, Appellant, v. James Paul McKENNA, Respondent. Application of Joseph Charles McGUIRE for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. STATE of Nevada, Appellant, v. Joseph Charles McGUIRE, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
George Dickerson, Dist. Atty., Clark County, Las Vegas, VeNoy Christoffersen, Deputy Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for appellant State of Nevada.
Bonner & Rittenhouse, Las Vegas, for respondent Ralls.
Jones, Wiener & Jones, Las Vegas, for respondent McKenna.
George E. Franklin, Jr., Las Vegas, for respondent McGuire.
These cases, consolidated for review by this court, are appeals taken by the state from orders of the trial court discharging three criminal defendants upon habeas corpus. Following preliminary hearing the writs were secured. Upon the record made at the preliminary hearing the discharge was ordered for the reason that insufficient cause was shown to hold for trial. The question upon appeal is whether, upon the record, the defendants may properly be held for the crime of mayhem. More specifically the question is whether an intent to commit that crime might be found under the circumstances. The trial court ruled that the state had failed to establish facts from which an intent might be found or inferred. In our view this ruling was proper and the court's orders should be affirmed.
As a result of a fist fight in which all three defendants participated, their opponent suffered the loss of an eye. The fight was provoked by the defendants and with no justification whatsoever. The state does not content that the defendants entertained an actual or specific intent to maim. The question is whether the necessary criminal intent may be imputed by reason of the unlawful assault upon the injured person.
In 2 Burdick, Law of Crime, 71, § 401, the author after reviewing statements by the early common law writers with reference to mayhem states 'In view of the foregoing statements it is evident that the common law elements of mayhem are (1) depriving; (2) anyone; (3) maliciously; (4) of a corporal member * * *.'
The state first contends, under our statute defining mayhem, that malice or specific criminal intent is not necessary; that nothing more than a general criminal intent is needed; that such an intent is supplied by the very fact of the unlawful assault. The statute, § 10098, N.C.L.1929 reads as follows: The state contends that since reference is twice made to the putting out of an eye, the crime may result whether the maiming was voluntary and purposeful or whether the act from which it resulted was merely unlawful.
Even should we accept the state's position as to the significance of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sorenson
...145 Neb. 261, 16 N.W.2d 164, 168, quoted with approval in Kirkendall v. State, 152 Neb. 691, 42 N.W.2d 374, 377; Cf., Application of Ralls, 71 Nev. 276, 288 P.2d 450; Territory v. Palai, 23 Haw. 133; Territory of Hawaii v. Wright, 16 Haw. 123; Republic of Hawaii v. Tsunikichi, 11 Haw. The j......
-
Crawford v. State
...intent is required for mayhem, none have held that a specific intent to disfigure or maim is required. See Ex Parte Ralls, 71 Nev. 276, 279, 288 P.2d 450, 451 (1955); see also Lomas v. State, 98 Nev. 27, 29, 639 P.2d 551, 553 (1982); Lamb v. Cree, 86 Nev. 179, 182, 466 P.2d 660, 662 (1970).......
-
Rowland, Application of
...prior to trial, of lack of probable cause that a crime was committed or that the petitioner committed it. NRS 34.500; Ex parte Ralls, 71 Nev. 276, 288 P.2d 450; Ex parte Kline, 71 Nev. 124, 282 P.2d 367. Some courts are more liberal, while others are, perhaps, stricter in limiting the offic......
-
Lamb v. Cree
...portion of the organ would to a reasonable person infer that the assailant intended to disfigure. As we said in In re Ralls, 71 Nev. 276, 279, 288 P.2d 450, 451 (1955): It does not follow that a specific intent to maim must be proved. It may be inferred or presumed. To accomplish such an en......