Martin v. Sheriff, Clark County, 6800
| Decision Date | 05 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 6800,6800 |
| Citation | 88 Nev. 303,496 P.2d 754 |
| Parties | Clifford Eugene MARTIN, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
The appellant was charged by criminal complaint with rape (NRS 200.263) and lewdness with a minor (NRS 201.230). The rape count alleged the infliction of substantial bodily harm (NRS 200.263(1)(a)).
The alleged victim was a 9-year-old girl, whose testimony at the preliminary examination was sufficient to constitute probable cause to believe that the offense had occurred and that the appellant had probably committed it. In support of the substantial-bodily-harm charge, the victim's mother testified that she had called the police because of her daughter's bleeding vagina.
At the conclusion of the preliminary examination, the district attorney moved to strike the portion of the rape charge alleging the infliction of substantial bodily harm, because of a lack of evidence to support it. That motion was granted by the magistrate.
The magistrate then dismissed the rape charge. We cannot perceive upon what authority such a dismissal order was entered in view of the testimony adduced at the preliminary examination, which showed that a rape had occurred. However, the magistrate did order the appellant bound over to the district court for trial on the charge of lewdness with a minor by the insertion of the penis into the vagina of the child. The district attorney thereupon filed an information charging the crime for which the appellant had been bound over, namely, lewdness with a minor by the insertion of the penis into the vagina of the child.
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was then filed on behalf of the appellant. In the petition it was contended that, inasmuch as the rape charge had been dismissed, and since the language of NRS 201.230 explicitly excludes the act of rape from the lewdness statute, 1 the appellant had been held to answer to a charge that is legally nonexistent.
At the hearing on the writ application, the district judge reviewed the transcript of the preliminary examination and found that it contained sufficient evidence to constitute probable cause to believe that the crime of rape had been committed and that the appellant probably had committed it. He also found the testimony of the child's mother to be sufficient evidence of substantial bodily harm to warrant reinstatement of that charge. As a result, the order of the district court was that the writ of habeas corpus was denied, with leave to the district attorney to file an amended information to charge the cirme shown by the preliminary examination transcript as probably having been committed, namely, rape with substantial bodily harm.
The appellant's contention on appeal is that the denial of the writ, with leave to amend, in these circumstances was error, because such a result is not authorized by our statutes. We agree.
The evidence presented by the State at the preliminary examination was sufficient to constitute probable cause to believe that the crime of rape had been committed and that the appellant had probably committed it. The magistrate erred when he ordered the appellant bound over on a charge of lewdness with a minor. The two crimes are rendered mutually exclusive by the language of NRS 201.230(1). On the evidence presented to the magistrate, it was also error for him to order the dismissal of the rape charge.
In the procedural posture in which the habeas petition was presented, the district court was without authority to deny the writ and order the information amended. The only permissible course under the circumstances was to grant the writ with leave to the district attorney to refile the rape charge under NRS 173.035(2) 2 and NRS 178.562(2). 3 Neither NRS 173.095 nor NRS 174.145 nor NRS 34.520 permits the court to order the amendment of an information to restate a charge that has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moultrie v. State
...court committed egregious error. We review a district court's determination of egregious error de novo. See Martin v. Sheriff, Clark Cnty., 88 Nev. 303, 306, 496 P.2d 754, 755 (1972) (applying de novo review to determine whether the magistrate committed egregious error). An information by a......
-
State v. Catanio
...v. Dearing, 89 Nev. 255, 255, 510 P.2d 874, 874 (1973) (defendant allegedly performed cunnilingus on victim); Martin v. Sheriff, 88 Nev. 303, 305, 496 P.2d 754, 755 (1972) (defendant allegedly inserted penis into victim); Farrell v. State, 83 Nev. 1, 2, 421 P.2d 948, 948 (1967) (defendant a......
-
Townsend v. State
...that the crimes of lewdness with a child under the age of fourteen and sexual assault are mutually exclusive. Martin v. Sheriff, 88 Nev. 303, 496 P.2d 754 (1972). Likewise, it is clear that lewdness with a child under the age of fourteen cannot be deemed an included offense of the crime of ......
-
Ryan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In and For Clark County
...valve against an arbitrary or mistaken decision of the magistrate, Maes v. Sheriff, 86 Nev. 317, 468 P.2d 332 (1970); Martin v. Sheriff, 88 Nev. 303, 496 P.2d 754 (1972), in a prosecution initiated by the district attorney and erroneously dismissed. Indeed, our statutory scheme invests cont......