Lloyd v. State, 9651
| Citation | 94 Nev. 167,576 P.2d 740 |
| Decision Date | 06 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 9651,9651 |
| Parties | Stanley LLOYD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nevada |
Page 740
v.
The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
Page 741
Charles L. Garner, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Robert List, Atty. Gen., Carson City, George E. Holt, Dist. Atty., H. Leon Simon, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. and H. Douglas Clark, Deputy Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.
[94 Nev. 168] OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Stanley Lloyd has appealed from his conviction following a jury trial on the charge of having raped a seventeen-year-old girl. Before this court he seeks to challenge 1) the trial court's rejection of his requested jury instructions, 2) the trial court's confinement of the scope of his counsel's closing argument, 3) the admission into evidence of a photograph of the victim's injuries, 4) the sufficiency of the State's evidence, and 5) the propriety of the thirty-year sentence imposed upon him. We find Lloyd's claims to be without merit, and shall therefore affirm the decision below.
1) The rejected jury instructions.
Our review of Lloyd's proffered instructions convinces us that to the extent that they are not erroneous statements of the law in Nevada, their substance was encompassed within the instructions actually given by the trial court. See Lawson v. State, 91 Nev. 519, 539 P.2d 116 (1975); Geary v. State, 91 Nev. 784, 544 P.2d 417 (1975).
2) The confinement of the scope of Lloyd's counsel's closing argument.
Lloyd argues that he was denied a fair trial when the trial court refused to permit his counsel in closing argument to instruct the jury on alternative theories of law relating to rape. [94 Nev. 169] Those theories substantially
Page 742
echoed those reflected in his rejected jury instructions.However it is improper for an attorney to argue legal theories to a jury when the jury has not been instructed on those theories. Cosey v. State, 93 Nev. 352, 566 P.2d 83 (1977). This line of closing argument was therefore properly proscribed.
3) The admission of a photograph of the victim's injuries.
Two photographs were admitted into evidence as plaintiff's Exhibits "I" and "2". Exhibit "I" is a Polaroid color photograph taken by Las Vegas Police staff of the victim's head and neck, showing bruises around the neck area. Exhibit "2" is an enlargement of Exhibit "I".
Lloyd argues that Exhibit "2" should not have been admitted into evidence because the coloring on the enlargement is somewhat darker than the original, depicting the bruises on the victim's neck as more pronounced than they appear in the original. However testimony at the trial repeatedly emphasized that Exhibit "I" was the original and Exhibit "2" the reproduction. Moreover, there has been no suggestion that Exhibit "2" is so gruesome as to shock the jury. See Cutler v. State, 93 Nev. 329, 566 P.2d 809 (1977). In the absence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doyle v. Filson
...(enlarged diagram of murder victim's body), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 830, 120 S.Ct. 85, 145 L.Ed.2d 72 (1999); see also Lloyd v. State, 94 Nev. 167, 169, 576 P.2d 740, 742 (1978) (enlarged photograph depicting injuries to rape victim). Additionally, we have long recognized the generally sanct......
-
State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. In and For Clark County, III
...the pronouncement of sentence "on a foundation ... extensively and materially false." Id. at 741, 68 S.Ct. at 1255. In Lloyd v. State, 94 Nev. 167, 576 P.2d 740 (1978), we held that a sentencing court pronouncing sentence within the statutory limits will not be found to have abused its disc......
-
Doyle v. State, 33216.
...(enlarged diagram of murder victim's body), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 120 S.Ct. 85, 145 L.Ed.2d 72 (1999); see also Lloyd v. State, 94 Nev. 167, 169, 576 P.2d 740, 742 (1978) (enlarged photograph depicting injuries to rape victim). Additionally, we have long recognized the generally sanct......
-
Barlow v. State
...(1985) (explaining that the district court abused its discretion by placing undue limits on the argument of counsel); cf . Lloyd v. State, 94 Nev. 167, 169, 576 P.2d 740, 742 (1978) ("[I]t is improper for an attorney to argue legal theories to a jury when the jury has not been instructed on......