Lloyd v. State
Decision Date | 06 April 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 9651,9651 |
Citation | Lloyd v. State, 94 Nev. 167, 576 P.2d 740 (Nev. 1978) |
Parties | Stanley LLOYD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
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.
Stanley Lloyd has appealed from his conviction following a jury trial on the charge of having raped a seventeen-year-old girl.Before this courthe 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.
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.SeeLawson v. State, 91 Nev. 519, 539 P.2d 116(1975);Geary v. State, 91 Nev. 784, 544 P.2d 417(1975).
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.Those theories substantially 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.
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.SeeCutler v. State, 93 Nev. 329, 566 P.2d 809(1977).In the absence of such a claim and where the record reveals that the jury was under no misapprehension as to the nature of Exhibit "2", it was properly admissible as relevant evidence.Allen v. State, 91 Nev. 78, 530 P.2d 1195(1975).
Lloyd took the stand in his own defense.He did not deny the consummation of the sexual act, but rather testified that such act had occurred at the insistence of the victim.The victim testified extensively at the trial to the effect that she had been physically attacked and had been forced to submit for fear of her life.Her testimony was corroborated by the photographs of her injuries.The jury was presented therefore essentially with an issue of credibility, and its decision will be given great weight on appeal.Wheeler v. State, 91 Nev. 119, 531 P.2d 1358(1975);Hankins v. State, 91 Nev. 477, 538 P.2d 167(1975).
The Department of Parole and Probation recommended a sentence of six years.Lloyd argues that because of this recommendation, a thirty-year sentence constitutes an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.However this court held in Collins v. State, 88 Nev. 168, 494 P.2d 956(1972), that: 88 Nev. at 171, 494 P.2d at 957.
Rather, an abuse of discretion will be found only when the record demonstrates "prejudice resulting from consideration of information or accusations founded on facts supported only by impalpable or highly suspect evidence . . . ."Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161(1976).Lloyd has made no allegations of improper reliance on suspect evidence.Rather, he argues that because no new evidence, not considered by the Department of Parole and Probation, was brought to light, the recommendation of the Department should have been followed by the trial court.
However, the recommendation of the Department of Parole and Probation is based only upon the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Cardenas-Ornelas v. Baker
...procedural history is derived from the exhibits located at ECF Nos. 40-45 of the Court's docket. 2. Blume relies on a line of cases that establish that a sentence within statutory limits does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment "where the statute fixing punishment is not unconstitutional or the sentence imposed is not disproportionate to the crime in a manner so as to be shocking to the conscience."
Lloyd v. State, 576 P.2d 740, 743 (Nev. 1978);... -
Etcheverry v. State
...659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987). The sentence imposed was well within the statutory limits of NRS 484.3795(1), and there has been no showing that the district judge relied on any "impalpable or highly suspect evidence." See
Lloyd, 94 Nev. at 170, 576 P.2d at 742. Therefore, there was no abuse of We have considered all other issues on appeal and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the district court. MOWBRAY, C.J., ROSE, STEFFEN and YOUNG,NRS 176.156). The record reflects that the district court acted accordingly. A recommendation of the Department of Prisons or the Department of Parole and Probation has no binding effect on the courts. Lloyd v. State, 94 Nev. 167, 170, 576 P.2d 740, 742 (1978). Moreover, we recognize that "[t]he sentencing judge has wide discretion in imposing a sentence...." Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987). The sentence imposed was well within the... -
Aragon v. State
...sentence of 1 to 6 years for conspiracy to commit robbery); NRS 200.380 (authorizing a sentence of 2 to 15 years for robbery). And thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its sentencing decision. See
Lloyd v. State, 94 Nev. 167, 170, 576 P.2d 740, 742 (1978)("When the sentence is within statutory limits and when there has been no proof of judicial reliance upon ‘impalpable or highly suspect evidence,’ this court will refrain from interference with the trial... -
King v. State
...district court did not err in admitting an enlarged version of a previously admitted diagram of the victim's body because it enabled the jury to see the diagram while the medical examiner explained the victim's wounds);
Lloyd v. State, 94 Nev. 167, 169, 576 P.2d 740, 742 (1978)(concluding that a court properly admitted a photo enlargement because both the enlargement and its source photo were admitted at trial and because counsel repeatedly identified it as an enlargement, leaving the...