Lightford v. State
Decision Date | 23 July 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 7917,7917 |
Citation | 538 P.2d 585,91 Nev. 482 |
Parties | Calvin Chester LIGHTFORD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Raymond E. Sutton, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Robert List, Atty. Gen., Carson City, George Holt, Dist. Atty., and Dan M. Seaton, Deputy Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.
Calvin Chester Lightford was originally convicted on two counts of unlawful possession of heroin. On appeal, we affirmed the judgment of conviction for count one, but reversed as to count two. Lightford v. State, 90 Nev. 136, 520 P.2d 955 (1974). Lightford thereafter filed a motion for a new trial, predicated on the alleged ground that newly discovered evidence showed that his arrest resulted from police entrapment involving an Elbert Williams, who purchased the heroin from Lightford for Mrs. Williams' use.
The granting of a new trial in criminal cases on the ground of newly discovered evidence is largely discretionary with the trial court, and that court's determination will not be reversed on appeal unless abuse of discretion is clearly shown. State v. Crockett, 84 Nev. 516, 444 P.2d 896 (1968); Burton v. State, 84 Nev. 191, 437 P.2d 861 (1968); Pacheco v. State, 81 Nev. 639, 408 P.2d 715 (1965). To establish this basis for a new trial, we stated in Oliver v. State, 85 Nev. 418, 424, 456 P.2d 431, 435 (1969), that
The record of the evidentiary hearing held on July 17, 1974, in the court below is not supportive of Lightford's claim of entrapment. Elbert Williams testified that he had known Lightford for the past 15 years and that he was aware that Lightford dealt in narcotics. Williams stated that he telephoned Lightford on November 17 and December 22, 1971, and asked him to get some narcotics for Mrs. Williams. Williams intended to pay Lightford for the narcotics. The defense of entrapment was defined by this court in In re Wright, 68 Nev. 324, 329, 232 P.2d 398, 400 (1951): 'Entrapment is the seduction or improper inducement to commit a crime for the purpose of instituting a criminal prosecution . . .' In Wyatt v. State, 77 Nev. 490, 493, 367 P.2d 104, 106 (1961), this court held that ' ' The evidence below showed that Lightford was furnished with an opportunity to commit a crime. He was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. State
...Daniels, 114 Nev. at 267, 956 P.2d at 115; State v. Ware, 118 N.M. 319, 881 P.2d 679, 685 (1994)). 32. See Lightford v. State, 91 Nev. 482, 483, 538 P.2d 585, 586 (1975) (the district court's ruling on a motion for new trial will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of ...
-
Griggs v. Superior Court for San Bernardino County
... ... 50 Cal.App.3d 738 ... Bertram S. GRIGGS as Superintendent of the California institution for Men, Chino, Petitioner, ... SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Respondent; ... Robert B. HEDBERG et al., Real Parties in Interest ... Civ. 15264 ... Court of ... ...
-
Porter v. State
...of newly discovered evidence is discretionary and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Lightford v. State, 91 Nev. 482, 538 P.2d 585 (1975). The judgment of conviction is BATJER, C. J., and MOWBRAY and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. GUNDERSON, Justice, concurring: Although ......
-
Clem v. State
...did not abuse its discretion in denying the new trial motion. See Young v. State, 103 Nev. 233, 737 P.2d 512 (1987); Lightford v. State, 91 Nev. 482, 538 P.2d 585 (1975). Appellants next urge reversal based upon the claims that a variety of the prosecutor's statements and actions denied the......