Johnson v. State
| Citation | 82 Nev. 338,418 P.2d 495 |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 5141,5141 |
| Parties | Beauford JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nevada |
This is an appeal from the order of the Fifth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Honorable Peter Breen, district judge, denying appellant's discharge on a writ of habeas corpus. In seeking the writ from the district court appellant contended he was unlawfully held because there was insufficient evidence presented at the preliminary hearing to constitute probable cause, and that the justice of peace had precluded appellant's counsel from cross-examining a witness for the state.
Appeal to this court includes additional grounds not urged to the trial court that the transcript of the preliminary hearing had been edited and did not reflect the true record of proceedings; further that a delay of 22 days between arrest and appointment of counsel violated appellant's right under the decision of Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Neither ground has merit. Appellant made no motion either to the magistrate or the district court to 'correct the transcript to conform with the testimony as given and to settle the transcript so altered.' NRS 171.405(7). We state in State v. Collyer, 17 Nev. 275, 279, 30 P. 891, 892 (1883), 'If a wrong has been committed the law intends that the party injured shall have a remedy, but, where it provides the manner in which relief shall be given, the path pointed out should be followed.'
The Miranda decision, supra, deals with incriminating statements offered against a defendant, not delay between arrest and appointment of counsel. The record fails to reveal that any such self-incriminating statements obtained from appellant while in custody were even offered.
The record indicates appellant was arrested for violation of NRS 205.272. 1 Four persons testified at the preliminary examination, Curtis H. Cline, Gerard H. Wilson, Wilfred Kinerson and August Huffman Hays. Mr. Cline testified no one, except employees, was authorized to use the truck and that appellant was not an employee. Mr. Wilson testified he observed appellant driving the truck and when asked if he had permission to use it, appellant responded he knew Mr. Cline and so he just took it. Mr. Kinerson said he also saw appellant in the truck. To commit a defendant for trial, the state is not required to negate all inferences which might explain the accused's conduct, but only to present enough evidence so as to support a reasonable inference that the accused committed the offense. In the Matter of Beasley, 79 Nev. 78, 378 P.2d 524 (1963).
The second point of appellant came about during cross-examination of Mr. Kinerson. The record reflects the following:
By Mr. Root:
Appellant contends he was denied the right of confrontation of the witness, in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Pointer v. State of Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). That case is not in point. Here, the defendant confronted the witness. The issue is not one of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Azbill v. State, 6122
...that the credibility of a witness may be attacked by showing his conviction of a felony but not by his mere arrest. Johnson v. State, 82 Nev. 338, 418 P.2d 495 (1966). However, the appellant cites Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 51 S.Ct. 218, 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931), for the proposition ......
-
Carson Ready Mix, Inc. v. First Nat. Bank of Nevada
...but where it provides the manner in which relief shall be given, the path pointed out should be followed.' " Johnson v. State, 82 Nev. 338, 340, 418 P.2d 495, 496 (1966), quoting State v. Collyer, 17 Nev. 275, 279, 30 P. 891, 892 (1883). See also State v. Hill, 32 Nev. 185, 105 P. 1025 Furt......
-
Bushnell v. State
...to the witness's prior felony convictions as opposed to a mere arrest or extraneous circumstances of the conviction. Johnson v. State, 82 Nev. 338, 418 P.2d 495 (1966). However, the trial court's discretion is more narrow where bias is the object to be shown, and an examiner must be permitt......
-
Sheriff, Clark County, Nev. v. Fernandez
...the offense." Kinsey v. Sheriff, 87 Nev. 361, 363, 487 P.2d 340, 341 (1971); see also Sheriff v. Hodes, supra; Johnson v. State, 82 Nev. 338, 418 P.2d 495 (1966). Fundamentally, the respondent advances two arguments, both of which we find unpersuasive. Respondent first argues that his physi......