Marcum v. Sheriff, Clark County, 5749
| Citation | 451 P.2d 845,85 Nev. 175 |
| Decision Date | 17 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 5749,5749 |
| Parties | Charles P. MARCUM, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nevada |
James D. Santini, Public Defender, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen., Carson City, George E. Franklin, Jr., Clark County Dist. Atty., Alan R. Johns, Deputy Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.
At the preliminary hearing the appellant was held to answer upon the charge of possession and sale of narcotics. The only evidence offered by the state of Nevada was the testimony of Charles R. Foxx, a detective in the Las Vegas police department. Foxx testified that on February 1, 1968, he accompanied an unidentified informer (the detective was unable to remember the informer's name) to a residence in Las Vegas where the informer stated he could make a contact for Foxx to buy narcotics. On this initial trip the detective remained in the car and the informer entered the building alone. The following day detective Foxx was introduced to the appellant, at which time the detective represented himself as a panderer and told the appellant that he needed a large quantity of marijuana for the girls that worked for him. The appellant advised Foxx that he did not have any LSD or marijuana at that time but that he would have some available at a later date. Foxx testified that he made several trips to the appellant's home and on one occasion showed him $1,000 that he had previously obtained from a cashier at the Las Vegas Club.
At about 6:00 p.m., on February 15, 1968, detective Foxx went to the appellant's apartment. Prior to his entrance into the building fellow officers of the Las Vegas police department had surrounded the building and were ready to ender at the detective's signal. When the detective entered the apartment there were three kilos of marijuana on the table which a Tommy Joe Phelps, present at the time, had brought in from Los Angeles. Detective Foxx bought the marijuana and some pills from appellant and paid him $300 with three 100 dollar bills. The serial numbers on two of the $100 bills had been recorded earlier.
After the appellant took possession of the money, detective Foxx threw an ashtray through the window as a signal to his fellow officers, drew his revolver, and announced that all were under arrest. Immediately thereafter the waiting police officers entered the apartment and assisted the detective.
The appellant does not request that the case be dismissed, but only that the matter be remanded for a continuation of the preliminary hearing to allow him a further opportunity to cross-examine the state's witness.
It is contended that error was committed by the magistrate when he restricted and appellant's cross-examination of the state's witness in the issues of entrapment and impeachment. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Specifically, the appellant contends that the following restrictions on cross-examination denied him the right to perfect his defense at the preliminary hearing:
1. The court prohibited further questions on the unknown identity of the informant who took Foxx to the home of the appellant.
2. The court stopped inquiry on how much money Foxx told the appellant he had with which to make purchases.
3. The court stopped the inquiry concerning the detective's affection for the appellant and the appellant's affection for the detective.
4. The court prohibited any questions on how Foxx simulated smoking marijuana cigarettes during one of his visits to the appellant's residence prior to the sale.
5. The court stopped inquiry on how Foxx was able to obtain money from the cashier at the Las Vegas Club and why this source was used instead of obtaining the money from the coffers of the Las Vegas police department.
6. The court would not let the defense find out whether or not the detective and given the appellant a portrait of the zig-zagman, a symbol of marijuana smoking.
NRS 171.206 requires the magistrate to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheriff v. Witzenburg
...examination, the magistrate is permitted to assess witness credibility and make credibility determinations, Marcum v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 175, 179, 451 P.2d 845, 847 (1969), thus Confrontation Clause policies are strongly 1. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d ......
-
Thedford v. Sheriff, Clark County
...NRS 200.260), accused may be held to answer for a public offense other than that charged in the complaint.' See also Marcum v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 175, 451 P.2d 845 (1969). The order of the district court is affirmed and the matter is remanded for further COLLINS, C.J., and ZENOFF, MOWBRAY, an......
-
State v. Altman
...of the state's witnesses or during his direct examination of one Gaylord Junkin. The Supreme Court of Nevada in Marcum v. Sheriff, Clark County, 85 Nev. 175, 451 P.2d 845 (1969) 'The appellant argues that the state's evidence raised the probability of entrapment and that he should have been......
-
Kinsey v. Sheriff, Washoe County, 6554
...examination or in proceedings before a grand jury, the issue of guilt or innocence of the accused is not involved. Marcum v. Sheriff. 85 Nev. 175, 451 P.2d 845 (1969). The evidence need not be sufficient to support a conviction. Maskaly v. State, 85 Nev. 111, 450 P.2d 790 (1969). Nor must t......