Fish v. State
| Citation | 92 Nev. 272,549 P.2d 338 |
| Decision Date | 10 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 7852,7852 |
| Parties | Irwin William FISH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Raymond E. Sutton, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Robert List, Atty. Gen., Carson City, George E. Holt, Dist. Atty., and Dan M. Seaton, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.
Irwin W. Fish, also known as Bill Fish and Bill Faisch, was convicted by a jury of the first-degree murder of Abraham Schwartz whose body was discovered in a shallow grave near Las Vegas in September of 1972.
At trial, it was established that Fish and three accomplices, David Miller, Douglas Webb and Benny Shoemaker, conspired in the abduction and execution of Schwartz. The critical evidence produced at trial consisted primarily of the testimony of three witnesses; David Miller (who testified under a grant of immunity from the state), his wife Constance and the wife of Douglas Webb, Suzanne.
On appeal, Fish claims (1) that the trial court erroneously permitted David Miller and his wife Constance to relate certain conversations which occurred outside the presence of Fish; (2) that the trial court erroneously refused to give certain proposed instructions to the jury; and (3) that insufficient evidence was produced at trial to corroborate the testimony of David Miller.
1. A significant portion of David Miller's testimony consisted of his account of conversations with and between his fellow conspirators. Such testimony is admittedly hearsay, was acknowledged as such by the trial court but nevertheless was admitted into evidence over objection by trial counsel. The trial court correctly observed that the hearsay statements fell within a well-recognized exception to the hearsay rule. Hearsay statements may be admitted into evidence where the statement 'is made by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.' NRS 51.035(3) (e); 1 Goldsmith v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 295, 454 P.2d 86 (1969). As a prerequisite to application of the 'statements of coconspirators' exception to the hearsay rule it must be determined by reference to independent evidence that a conspiracy existed. Fish argues that evidence in this regard is lacking.
The amount of independent evidence necessary to prove the existence of a conspiracy may be slight, it is enough that only prima facie evidence of the fact is produced. Goldsmith v. Sheriff, supra. The evidence that Webb, Miller, Shoemaker and Fish conspired to kill Schwartz is substantial. Miller testified that on April 27, 1972, Fish told Miller and Webb that he was having trouble with Schwartz and that they would have to 'take care of him.' At that meeting Fish gave Miller and Webb Schwartz's address and a description of his car. They began to follow and observe Schwartz and checked in with Fish intermittently. Prior to the killing they stayed in a motel in Las Vegas leased and operated by Fish without paying for their accommodations. The day before the killing, in the presence of Miller and Webb, Fish telephoned Schwartz and arranged to meet him the following morning. Before Schwartz arrived at the designated meeting place, Fish again met with Webb and Miller and outlined in detail the murder plan and furnished them with 'knock-out drops,' the use of which the plan required.
The related facts are prima facie evidence of a conspiracy and therefore constituted a sufficient foundation for admitting the extra judicial statements of Fish's coconspirators made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracry.
2. Constance Miller, not a coconspirator, testified to conversations overheard by her between Miller, Webb, Shoemaker and Fish. The fact that she was not a coconspirator does not preclude her testimony under NRS 51.035(3)(e) since that statute does not require that the witness be a coconspirator, only that the statement in question be by a coconspirator. Any statements made by Miller, Webb, Shoemaker or Fish during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy were admissible regardless of who testified as to having heard the statements. Bingham v. People, 157 Colo. 92, 401 P.2d 255 (1965); but see also State v. Sanders, 27 Utah 2d 354, 496 P.2d 270 (1972).
Constance Miller related many statements overheard by or directed to her by Miller, Webb, Shoemaker and Fish at various times. Appellant claims that the admission of these statements was error for the reason that they were not made during the course or in furtherance of the conspiracy but directs us to no particular statements he considers prejudicial and cites no authority supporting his position. While several of the statements related by Mrs. Miller were objectionable on the ground that they were not made during the course or in furtherance of the conspiracy, trial counsel objected only once on this ground. Unless the error is fundamental, specific objection must be made thereto at trial in order to preserve the issue for consideration on appeal. 2 Shepp v. State, 87 Nev. 179, 484 P.2d 563 (1971); Sparkman v. State, 88 Nev. 680, 504 P.2d 8 (1972). In this instance, admission of the statements to which no objections were interposed was not fundamental error mandating reversal. The statement which was admitted over objection was not prejudicial and therefore constitutes no ground for reversal.
It should be noted that many of the statements related by Mrs. Miller were made by Fish or were made in Fish's presence and therefore were admissible as admissions or adopted admissions. NRS 51.035(3). Those statements not falling within these exceptions and to which no objections were made were largely innocuous and, in any event, were nonprejudicial.
3. Fish proposed several jury instructions with the hope that the jury would be permitted to find that Mrs. Miller and Mrs. Webb were accomplices whose testimony would require corroboration. The trial court rejected his proposed instructions on the ground that there was no evidence suggesting that the two women were accomplices....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jasch v. State
...have been included, the Bruton rule being applicable to the latter, with respect to which we make no holding.5 See also Fish v. State, Nev.1976, 549 P.2d 338. The trial judge has considerable discretion in determining the sufficiency of evidence of a joint undertaking and the purpose of the......
-
Burnside v. State
...evidence must establish that a conspiracy existed. Crew v. State, 100 Nev. 38, 46, 675 P.2d 986, 991 (1984) ; Fish v. State, 92 Nev. 272, 274–75, 549 P.2d 338, 340 (1976). We conclude that prima facie evidence established a conspiracy between Burnside and McKnight to rob Hardwick.6 Because ......
-
Holmes v. State
...on appeal appears in the record below, this court lacks a satisfactory basis for assessing prejudicial error. See Fish v. State, 92 Nev. 272, 276, 549 P.2d 338, 340–41 (1976) (objection on the grounds that a coconspirator's statements “were not made during the course or in furtherance of th......
-
Daly v. State
... ... Because appellant did not object to the evidence of other alleged acts of misconduct or remind the district judge of his prior ruling, or raise the issue in his motion for a new trial, we shall not consider the issue on appeal. 2 See Fish v. State, 92 Nev. 272, ... 276, 549 P.2d 338, 341 (1976); Allen v. State, 91 Nev. 78, 81-82, 530 P.2d 1195, 1197 (1975) ... THE VICTIM'S PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS ... At trial, a friend of the stepdaughter testified as to the substance of certain statements that Cami had made ... ...