Ingle v. State
| Citation | 546 P.2d 598,92 Nev. 104 |
| Decision Date | 20 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 7973,7973 |
| Parties | Richard Lee INGLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nevada |
After a jury trial, appellant stands convicted of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to do bodily harm. Here, appellant contends: (1) he was denied his right to a speedy trial; and (2) the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to allow appellant to testify. We perceive no speedy trial violation; however, we agree it was reversible error to prohibit appellant from testifying.
1. The original information in this case was filed February, 1969. Appellant entered a guilty plea and received a six year sentence in the Nevada State Prison. In June, 1972, appellant's motion to withdraw his plea was granted. The trial eventually began in July, 1974. The delay between the withdrawal of the plea and the ultimate trial on the merits resulted from continued negotiations, changes in the plea and a mistrial granted at appellant's request. We perceive no constitutional speedy trial violation where, as here, the record affirmatively reflects the delays were substantially caused by appellant's actions. Cf. Maiorca v. Sheriff, 87 Nev. 63, 482 P.2d 312 (1971).
2. Against the advice of counsel, appellant expressed a desire to take the stand. The trial court refused appellant's request to testify. This exclusion from the witness stand constitutes reversible error.
Every criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense, or to refuse to do so.' Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 225, 91 S.Ct. 643, 645, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971). 'The privilege of a criminal defendant to testify is the other side of the coin on which appears the privilege against self-incrimination.' United States v. Lves, 504 F.2d 935, 939 (9 Cir. 1974), vacated on other grounds, 421 U.S. 944, 95 S.Ct. 1671, 44 L.Ed.2d 97 (1975). Certainly, the accused may waive the privilege, either expressly or by his actions. However, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Curtis
... . Page 504 . 681 P.2d 504 . The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner . v. . Arthur CURTIS, Respondent. . Dennis Ray JONES, Petitioner, . v. . The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent. . ...Escamilla, 195 Neb. 558, 239 N.W.2d 270 (1976); State ex rel. Sikora v. District Court, 154 Mont. 241, 462 P.2d 897 (1969); Ingle v. State, 92 Nev. 104, 546 P.2d 598 (1976); Connery v. State, 499 P.2d 462 (Okl.Cr.App.1972); Mathis v. State, 471 S.W.2d 396 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); ......
-
Alicea v. Gagnon
...... The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed Alicea's conviction in an unpublished decision. State v. Alicea, 97 Wis.2d 759, 295 N.W.2d 835 (1980). Thereafter, Alicea sought discretionary review in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which refused to ...200, 187 N.W.2d 454 (1971); People v. Hall, 19 Mich.App. 95, 172 N.W.2d 473 (1969); State v. Rosillo, 281 N.W.2d 877 (Minn.1979); Ingle v. State, 92 Nev. 104, 546 P.2d 598 (1976); State v. Albright, 96 Wis.2d 122, 291 N.W.2d 487, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 957, 101 S.Ct. 367, 66 L.Ed.2d ......
-
State v. Douglas
...... * * * " . 31 People v. Chavez, Colo., 621 P.2d 1362 (1981); Hughes v. State, 513 P.2d 1115 (Alaska 1973); State v. Albright, 96 Wis.2d 122, 291 N.W.2d 487 (1980); Ingle v. State, 92 Nev. 104, 546 P.2d 598 (1976); People v. Knox, 58 Ill.App.3d 761, 16 Ill.Dec. 182, 374 N.E.2d 957 (1978); MacKenna v. Ellis, 280 F.2d 592, 595 (5th Cir. 1960), modified 289 F.2d 928 (5th Cir. 1961) (en banc) ("(I)t is basic to due process that an accused person have a fair opportunity ......
-
State v. Albright
......605, 612, 92 S.Ct. 1891, 1895, 32 L.Ed.2d 358 (1972); see, Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570, 81 S.Ct. 756, 5 L.Ed.2d 783 (1961). Several states have also held that the right to testify is a federal constitutional right. State v. Rosillo, --- Minn. ---, 281 N.W.2d 877 (1979); Ingle v. State, 92 Nev. 104, 546 P.2d 598 (1976) (basis of right not expressed); Hughes v. State, 513 P.2d 1115 (Alaska, 1973) (basis of right not expressed); State v. Noble, 109 Ariz. 539, 514 P.2d 460 (1973); People v. Knox, 58 Ill.App.3d 761, 16 Ill.Dec. 182, 374 N.E.2d 957 (1978); People v. Robles, 2 ......