Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 23 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 9357,9357 |
| Citation | 93 Nev. 287,564 P.2d 605 |
| Parties | Benjamin D. JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Convicted by jury for possession of a controlled substance in violation of NRS 453.336, appellant contends the district court erred by (1) denying his pre-trial motion to compel the State to produce an informant, (2) refusing to grant a mistrial because of the State's alleged improper cross-examination of a defense witness, and (3) failing to grant a mistrial because a portion of the habitual criminal charge contained in the information was read to the jury. We disagree.
1. Acting on an informant's tip, officers at the Nevada State Prison approached appellant's cell, observed him with his arm in the toilet bowl, and found marijuana floating in the bowl and on appellant's arm. Appellant was on trial because of these facts witnessed on the scene by the officers, not because of the prior information received. Under these circumstances and because nothing in the record discloses the informer might have been a material witness on the issue of guilt, the district court properly denied appellant's motion to compel the production of the informant. Miller v. State, 86 Nev. 503, 471 P.2d 213 (1970); Adams v. State, 81 Nev. 524, 407 P.2d 169 (1965).
2. Appellant next contends the district court should have granted him a mistrial because the State asked a defense witness on cross-examination whether the witness had been convicted of a felony (robbery) and was not prepared to prove such conviction in the event of a negative answer. While it is permissible to impeach a witness by evidence of a criminal conviction, NRS 50.095(1), 1 we do not condone the use of cross-examination as a subterfuge to blacken a witness's character by insinuating criminal convictions which cannot be proved. See State v. Gustafson, 248 Or. 1, 432 P.2d 323 (1967); Anno., 3 A.L.R.3d 965 (1965). Here the witness fully explained the circumstances of the alleged conviction, and the record indicates there was justification for the State's belief that the witness had been convicted of the crime. In light of these facts and because the witness admitted two other felony convictions, we find no reversible error. See State v. Thompson, 110 Ariz. 165, 516 P.2d 42 (1973).
3. Finally, appellant contends we must reverse his conviction because a small portion of the habitual criminal charge contained in the information was inadvertently read to the jury by the district court clerk, contrary to the mandate of NRS 207.010(5). 2 Here, the appellant exercised his 5th Amendment right and elected not to be a witness in his own behalf. Any material error with respect to the reading of the criminal charge would militate against a defendant's right to silence. The statute precludes any reference to the habitual charge during the trial of the primary offense. A review of the prior offenses makes it clear why appellant may have determined not to take the stand. The statute speaks in terms of 'charge,' and although there was reference to 'habitual criminal' made by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
... ... 397] connection would have been shown, entrapment would have been an arguable issue, and the need for the disclosed identity reasonably compelling. Here, however, Brown was charged for his own independent activity, and the undercover officer was not a material witness. Cf. Jones v. State, 93 Nev. 178, 564 P.2d 605 (1977). Relative to appellant's claim of entitlement to entrapment instructions, it is axiomatic that the "defendant in a criminal case is entitled to have the court instruct the jury about his theory of defense, if there is evidence to support it." Barger v ... ...
- Jones v. State
-
Betts v. McDaniel
...MICHAEL JAMES BETTS, Appellant, v. E.K. MCDANIEL, WARDEN, ELY STATE PRISON, Respondent.No. 66559COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADAJune 16, 2015An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not ... See Yllas v. State, 112 Nev. 863, 867, 920 P.2d 1003, 1006 (1996) (discussing that in Jones v. State, 93 Nev. 287, 289, 564 P.2d 605, 607 (1977), the fact the witness had two other prior felonies meant there was little likelihood of ... ...
-
Yates v. State
... ... NRS 48.035(2). While the nature of the underlying offense by which impeachment is sought may affect the trial court's determination as to the relevance, and hence admissibility of the impeachment, that determination will be reversed only upon a clear showing of abuse. Jones v. State, 93 Nev. 287, 564 P.2d 605 (1977) ... Even in those jurisdictions which adhere to the rule appellant espouses, since robbery and larceny involve dishonesty, convictions for such offenses are often held admissible for purposes of impeachment. See United States v. Wilson, ... ...