Hutchinson, Application of
| Decision Date | 16 December 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 4371,4371 |
| Citation | 357 P.2d 589,76 Nev. 478 |
| Parties | Application of Robert O. HUTCHINSON for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Gordon L. Hawkins, George M. Dickerson, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Roger D. Foley, Atty. Gen., John F. Mendoza, Dist. Atty., John Spann, Dep. Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.
This is an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
A presentment was found against petitioner by the grand jury of Clark County charging him with burglary in the first degree. Pursuant thereto petitioner was brought before the Honorable David Zenoff, Judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court, sitting as a magistrate, who proceeded to examine the charge contained in the presentment. From the evidence adduced, petitioner was bound over for trial.
The only question before us is whether or not sufficient evidence was presented to said magistrate to justify his action in holding petitioner to answer for the crime charged in the presentment.
Alfred E. Mazzucca testified that on March 29, 1957, he and petitioner Hutchinson were police officers of the City of Las Vegas. At about 11:00 P.M. of that particular day, he and Hutchinson checked out of the patrol car in which they had been riding, leaving the car at 1100 Fremont Street. They proceeded to the Wright-Marinello Beauty Salon located at 1106 Fremont Street. They shook the back door, slipped the lock 1 with a knife, the door opened, and they entered. They entered 'to see what we could steal.' Thereupon they took numerous articles consisting of cosmetics, towels, and two hair driers which they put in a suitcase found in the establishment.
Subsection 1 of NRS 175.265 provides:
'A conviction shall not be had on the testimony of an accomplice, unless he is corroborated by other evidence which in itself, and without the aid of the testimony of the accomplice, tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; and the corroboration shall not be sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.'
It is conceded that Mazzucca should be regarded as an accomplice.
In order to comply with said statute the following corroborating evidence was introduced.
Nellie Cornwell testified that on March 29, 1957 she was an employee of Wright-Marinello Beauty Salon located at 1106 Fremont. On that day she was taking inventory of the merchandise in the shop. On the following day she rechecked some of the merchandise and notical articles missing, consisting of cosmetics, a hair drier, suitcase, scissors, etc.
Exhibit A in evidence is the burglary report given by Nellie Cornwell over her signature. In it, the following form questions and her answers thereto appear:
Type of Premises Entered 1 story beauty salon Entered Through Possibly rear door. Instrument Used Unknown Method Used to Gain Entrance (Broke Glass, Cut Screen, Broke Lock, Cut Made in Roof, etc.) Possibly door unlocked No signs of entry made. Suspect possibly a key, and was an open door.
Sergeant Martin Boyce testified that he was dispatcher and desk sergeant for the Law Vegas Police Department on March 29, 1957. His work sheet or log showed that Mazzucca and Hutchinson worked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shelby v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court In and For Pershing County
...writ granted; and many others. The remedy is equally available for use following a grand jury presentment, (See: Ex parte Hutchinson, 76 Nev. 478, 357 P.2d 589 (1960), writ granted.), and, as already noted, to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting a grand jury indictment. Ex......
-
State ex rel. Orsborn v. Fogliani
...Colton v. Leypaldt, 72 Nev. 83, 295 P.2d 383 (1956); Ex parte Rowland and Schuman, 74 Nev. 215, 326 P.2d 1102 (1958); Ex parte Hutchinson, 76 Nev. 478, 357 P.2d 589 (1960). In the case before us, petitioner was wrongfully imprisoned. He was convicted under a statute which did not prohibit h......
-
Maskaly v. State
...cause. While the quantity of evidence sufficient to show probable cause differs depending on the type of evidence, Ex Parte Hutchinson, 76 Nev. 478, 357 P.2d 589 (1960), and the offense charged, State v. Wyatt, 84 Nev. ---, 448 P.2d 827 (1968), we deem the evidence sufficient here to show p......
-
Austin v. State
...Implicitly recognizing the propriety of the aforedescribed approach to application of NRS 175.291, this court held in Ex Parte Hutchinson, 76 Nev. 478, 357 P.2d 589 (1960), that an accomplice was not sufficient corroborated, even to show probable cause to hold for trial, merely by showing t......