Huebner v. State

Decision Date06 February 1987
Docket NumberNo. 16739,16739
PartiesRoss Vincent HUEBNER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
CourtNevada Supreme Court

John G. Watkins, Las Vegas, for appellant.

Brian McKay, Atty. Gen., Carson City, Robert Miller, Dist. Atty., and James Tufteland, Deputy Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Ross Vincent Huebner appeals his conviction of carrying a concealed weapon. The weapon was a sharp, pointed instrument, four and one-half inches in length, sheathed in what appears outwardly to be a ball-point pen.

Huebner does not argue that the device was not a weapon 1; rather, he argues that there is no evidence that it was concealed.

The weapon, a four and one-half inch, spring-loaded, pointed implement designed for stabbing, was cleverly concealed within the shell of what appeared to be a ball-point pen. When Huebner was put under arrest for driving under the influence of intoxicants, the arresting officer noticed the pen and did not remove it from Huebner's person. The weapon was so well concealed within the pen shell that it was not discovered to be a weapon until the personal property inventory at booking.

Huebner argues that the weapon was not concealed because a portion of the "pen" protruded from under his belt. Huebner will not be heard by this court to say that this stabbing implement was not being concealed simply because a casual observer could see only a pen clipped to his belt and not the sheathed, stabbing device. The weapon was certainly concealed from the arresting officer by its disguise as a pen, or it would have been confiscated at the time of the arrest. In addition, there is evidence that the place on Huebner's belt where the weapon was clipped was concealed by a jacket worn by Huebner at the time of his arrest.

The nature of this case renders harmless any error that might have been committed by the claimed unavailability of a witness who, according to Huebner's counsel, was going to give expert testimony on the meaning of English words and phrases as they related to Huebner's guilt. We can see no possibility of this weapon's not being covered by the statute and can see no benefit to Huebner to be derived from etymological testimony. Further, we see no possibility of this masquerading stabbing device's not being considered either as concealed within the pen shell or as being concealed under Huebner's belt or both. The conviction must therefore be affirmed unless there is substance to Huebner's claim that he was denied his right to a speedy trial under the Constitution or under NRS 178.556 or that his rights under NRS 171.178(1) were violated.

Speedy Trial

Huebner was arrested on January 10, 1985, and incarcerated until January 18, at which time he was brought before a magistrate. The criminal complaint was filed on January 18, 1985; the information was filed on April 10, 1985. Trial was held July 1, 1985, 103 days from the date of filing the complaint and 82 days from the date of filing the information.

NRS 178.556 provides that "[i]f a defendant whose trial has not been postponed upon his application is not brought to trial within 60 days after the finding of the indictment, complaint or filing of the information, the court may dismiss the indictment or information." Eighty-two days elapsed between filing of the information and trial. Huebner is responsible for approximately eleven days of delay. Dismissal is mandatory where there is a lack of good cause shown for the delay. Anderson v. State, 86 Nev. 829, 834, 477 P.2d 595, 598 (1970). The state has the burden of showing good cause. Anderson, 86 Nev. at 834, 477 P.2d at 598.

The state's motion to continue the trial under Hill v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 234, 452 P.2d 918 (1969), was based on an affidavit claiming that the arresting officer was scheduled for vacation at the time of the trial. Although the affidavit incorrectly states that the arresting officer, Alessandra, discovered the weapon, his testimony was still a critical part of the prosecution's case, if for no reason other than to show that the pen-weapon was hidden under Huebner's jacket at the time of arrest.

Failure to Bring Before a Magistrate

NRS 171.178(1) provides that an arrested person shall be brought before a magistrate "without unnecessary delay" after his arrest. Morgan v. Sheriff, Clark County 92 Nev. 544, 546, 554 P.2d 733, 734 (1976). NRS 171.178(3) provides that:

[i]f the arrested person is not brought before a magistrate within 72 hours after arrest, excluding nonjudicial days, the magistrate (a) shall give the prosecuting attorney an opportunity to explain the circumstances leading to the delay; and (b) may release the arrested person if he determines that the person was not brought before a magistrate without unnecessary delay.

The purpose behind NRS 171.178 is to prevent "resort to those reprehensible practices known as the 'third degree' which, though universally...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Com. v. Perez
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • March 24, 2004
    ...732 (Miss.1981); State v. Smith, 588 S.W.2d 27 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Benbo, 174 Mont. 252, 570 P.2d 894 (1977); Huebner v. State, 103 Nev. 29, 731 P.2d 1330 (1987); State v. Lavallee, 104 N.H. 443, 189 A.2d 475 (1963); State v. Barry, 86 N.J. 80, 429 A.2d 581 (1981); State v. Ortiz, 77 N.......
  • Moultrie v. State
    • United States
    • Nevada Court of Appeals
    • December 24, 2015
    ...(discussing, but not resolving, argument that "good cause" was required to file belated information); see also Huebner v. State, 103 Nev. 29, 31, 731 P.2d 1330, 1332 (1987) (speedy trial portion of NRS 178.556 can only be waived upon showing of good cause); Anderson v. State, 86 Nev. 829, 8......
  • Commonwealth v. Garcia
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • July 25, 2012
    ...as used in statute prohibiting carrying certain dangerous weapons defined as “a short weapon used for stabbing”); Huebner v. State, 103 Nev. 29, 30 n. 1, 731 P.2d 1330 (1987) (“a dagger is a short weapon used for thrusting and stabbing”); State v. Pruett, 37 Or.App. 183, 187, 586 P.2d 800 (......
  • Powell v. State
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • September 3, 1992
    ...The purpose of NRS 171.178 is to prevent the police from resorting to secret interrogations and coercive tactics. Huebner v. State, 103 Nev. 29, 32, 731 P.2d 1330, 1333 (1987). This court has repeatedly held that the defendant must show prejudice which resulted from the delay. See e.g., Id.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT