King v. State, 4632

• Decision Date: 20 May 1964
• Docket Number: No. 4632,4632
• Citation: 80 Nev. 269,392 P.2d 310
• Parties: Nathan Crawford KING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Page 310

392 P.2d 310

80 Nev. 269

Nathan Crawford KING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.

No. 4632.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

May 20, 1964.

William R. Devlin, Las Vegas, for appellant.

Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen., Carson City, Edward G. Marshall, Clark County Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.

THOMPSON, Justice.

In the early morning of May 2, 1962, Nathan King shot and killed his wife. The homicide occurred in their apartment at 2535 Carroll, North Las Vegas. A jury convicted him of first degree murder and directed his punishment to be life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. NRS 200.030(4). Judgment and sentence were duly entered. He appeals.

The main contention is that the jury's conclusion of a willful, deliberate and premeditated killing, viz., first degree murder, can only find support in an inadmissible telephone statement overheard, and related in court, by an operator of the Southern Nevada Telephone Company. He challenges the admissibility of the telephone operator's testimony on the ground that the identity of the voices which she overheard was not satisfactorily established. The operator was permitted to testify that at 2:40 a. m., May 2, 1962, she answered the telephone and heard an unidentified woman's voice say, 'Help, help, I need help.' As it was an emergency call, the operator kept the line open. A few moments later the unidentified woman's voice came back on the line and repeated, 'Help, help. I need help.' In the background she also heard an unidentified man's voice state, 'Put that phone down, it's too late now.' At 2:55 a. m. (the trunk line was still open) she heard a man, who identified himself as Nathan King, advise the police that he had just killed his wife.

Before the operator testified the state had shown that there was only one telephone connection to the King apartment at 2535 Carroll; that it was a one party line. In addition, an authenticated statement of Nathan King had been received in evidence in which he stated, inter alia, 'I remember my wife calling for help on the phone and I remember taking the phone away from her hand.' When the police arrived at the homicide scene the telephone was off the hook. When King took the stand the testified that only he, his wife and their small baby were in the apartment when the telephone calls were made.

In general terms it is true that, in order for a telephone conversation to be admissible in evidence, the identity of the party on the other end of the line must be established. However, positive voice identification by the hearer is not required. The identification may be satisfactorily shown by circumstantial evidence. State v. Kladis, 172 Kan. 38, 238 P.2d 522; State v. Gardner, 227 N.C. 37, 40 S.E.2d 415; 7 Wigmore on Evidence, 3d ed., § 2155; Annots. 71 A.L.R. 5, 105 A.L.R. 326. Though the...