Hanley v. State
| Decision Date | 04 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 4683,4683 |
| Citation | 80 Nev. 248,391 P.2d 865 |
| Parties | Gramby Andrew HANLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Babcock & Sutton, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen., Carson City, Edward G. Marshall, Dist. Atty., William E. Freedman, Deputy Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.
On this appeal we are asked to overrule a settled test relating to a motion to change the vanue of a criminal trial. In State v. Alsup, 68 Nev. 45, 226 P.2d 801, we said: Accord: State v. Millain, 3 Nev. 409; State v. Gray, 19 Nev. 212, 8 P. 456; State v. Teeter, 65 Nev. 584, 200 P.2d 657; State v. Fouquette, 67 Nev. 505, 221 P.2d 404. Here, Hanley (defendant-appellant) moved for a change of venue before the case came on for trial. The motion was grounded upon his affidavit which alleged that he could not receive a fair and impartial trial in Clark County because of five newspaper articles which (according to him) implied that he was guilty of the offense (burglary), and that he had illegally attempted to influence the jurors who had been summoned to try the case when it had been previously scheduled for trial. In denying the motion the court made it clear that such denial was without prejudice to Hanley's right to renew his motion 'if, after voir dire examination of the jurors, it was shown that the jurors were influenced by the newspaper articles.' Though the preferred procedure is to reserve ruling on a pretrial motion to change venue until the jury panel is subjected to examination, 1 the court cannot be said to have abused its discretion in denying the motion with leave to renew it after the panel had been examined. It is manifest that the court's action did not cause Hanley prejudice.
In seeking to overturn the denial of his motion, Hanley suggests that the news articles were, and now are, inherently prejudicial to his right to a fair trial. We find it unnecessary to republish the articles in this opinion. Their effect, if any, upon the jurors to be selected cannot be ascertained before voir dire examination. At least, this is the necessary conclusion to be drawn from the cases cited above and NRS 175.115. That statute provides that 'no person shall be disqualified as a juror by reason of having formed or expressed an opinion upon the matter or cause to be submitted to such jury, founded upon * * * statements in public press * * * provided it appears to the court, upon his declaration, under oath or otherwise, that he can and will, notwithstanding such an opinion, act impartially and fairly upon the matters submitted to him.' See State v. Milosovich, 42 Nev. 263, 175 P. 139; State v. Williams, 28 Nev. 395, 82 P. 353. We conclude that Hanley's motion for a change of venue was prematurely made. Whether adverse publicity may fatally infect the fairness of a criminal trial is an issue to be presented to the trial court by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bishop v. State
...Bishop moved to change the venue of the trial pursuant to NRS 174.455(2); 1 the court denied this motion. See Hanley v. State, 80 Nev. 248, 391 P.2d 865 (1964). He concedes that NRS 174.455 is a codification of our case law but contends that his right to due process is infringed and prejudi......
-
Bean v. State
...accused, and a preliminary hearing waived. Counsel was apparently satisfied with the jury selected following voir dire (cf. Hanley v. State, 80 Nev. 248, 391 P.2d 865, and the cases therein cited), for he did not seek to change the place of trial. The failure to object to certain items of e......
-
Hanley v. State
...Vegas press. His motion was denied and he appealed to this court. This court upheld the ruling of the trial court in Hanley v. State, 80 Nev. 248, 391 P.2d 865 (1964), on the ground that the motion for change of venue was Following that action he was brought to trial in October 1964 on an a......
-
Mears v. State
...nexus between the publicity and the case at bar, we cannot find an abuse of discretion in denying a continuance. Cf. Hanley v. State, 80 Nev. 248, 391 P.2d 865 (1964). 2. In rebuttal the state offered psychiatric opinion testimony to controvert the opinion evidence given by the defense to e......