Leaders v. State, 8527
| Decision Date | 29 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 8527,8527 |
| Citation | 548 P.2d 1374,92 Nev. 250 |
| Parties | Larry James LEADERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Larry James Leaders was convicted, by jury verdict, of second degree murder and sentenced to fifty (50) years in the Nevada State Prison. He has perfected this appeal contending the trial court erred in (1) not instructing the jury properly and (2) denying his motion for mistrial.
1. In support of his first contention Leaders alleges he was entitled to have the jury instructed that the element of malice inherent in the crime of murder may be negated by a showing of voluntary intoxication, thus reducing his crime to either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. 1 This is not, and has never been, the law in Nevada. See State v. Fisko, 58 Nev. 65, 77, 70 P.2d 1113, 1117 (1937), where this court said: 'While the authorities are not all agreed, the great weight thereof in this country is to the effect that mere intoxication cannot reduce murder to manslaughter.' Appellant has advanced no persuasive reason, and we perceive none, why we should now change this rule. The refusal to give the instruction was correct. Lisby v. State, 82 Nev. 183, 414 P.2d 592 (1966). Cf. Stewart v. State, 92 Nev. ---, 547 P.2d 320 (1976).
2. In support of his contention that a mistrial should have been granted, Leaders argues the display of what he alludes to as 'a gory photograph' of the victim, which had not been admitted in evidence, prejudiced the jury. When the motion was made, the trial judge excused the jury, conducted a hearing and concluded the exhibition was inadvertent and, therefore, not for the purpose of inflaming the jurors. See State v. Holt, 47 Nev. 233, 241--242, 219 P. 557, 559--560 (1923). In our view, the record supports that determination; furthermore, the trial judge instructed the jury that they must disregard all evidence ruled to be inadmissible. Leaders' contention that a mistrial should have been granted must also be rejected because (1) he has failed to cite any relevant authority in support of the contention (see Franklin v. State, 89 Nev. 382, 513 P.2d 1252 (1973)); and, (2) he has failed to designate and include the alleged 'gory photograph' in the record. Cf. Lamoureux v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gullett
...weight thereof in this country is to the effect that mere intoxication cannot reduce murder to manslaughter.'" Leaders v. State, 92 Nev. 250, 548 P.2d 1374, 1375 (1976). Also see State v. Hall, 214 N.W.2d 205 (Iowa 1974); Mock v. State, 2 Md.App. 771, 237 A.2d 811 (1968); State v. Sinclair,......
-
Dozier v. State
...by the victim that would be sufficient under the voluntary manslaughter statute, see NRS 200.050(1) ; Leaders v. State, 92 Nev. 250, 251–52, 548 P.2d 1374, 1374–75 (1976) (providing that evidence of intoxication or drug use is insufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter). Second, Dozier a......
-
Barker v. State
...521, 554 P.2d 266 (1976)), and we therefore refuse to entertain this challenge, unsupported by any relevant authority. Leaders v. State, 92 Nev. 250, 548 P.2d 1374 (1976); Carson v. Sheriff, 87 Nev. 357, 487 P.2d 334 2. Prior Trial Testimony. Upon the court's ruling that it would admit Keel......
-
Abram v. State
...the trial court and its determination will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of abuse. See Leaders v. State, 92 Nev. 250, 548 P.2d 1374 (1976); People v. Lankford, 185 Colo. 445, 524 P.2d 1382 (1974). Normally, error may not be predicated upon a ruling admitting e......