Morgan v. Sheriff, Clark County
| Decision Date | 30 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 8918,8918 |
| Citation | 554 P.2d 733,92 Nev. 544 |
| Parties | Earl MORGAN, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Edwin J. Dotson, and J. E. Smith, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Robert List, Atty. Gen., Carson City, George E. Holt, Dist. Atty., and Frank J. Cremen, Deputy Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.
About seven p.m. on the evening of September 23, 1975, Las Vegas police officers were dispatched to Earl Morgan's residence to execute a search warrant. Finding no one at the house, the officers maintained a vigil for some fifteen (15) minutes until Morgan returned. The officers immediately served the warrant and during the ensuing search they seized a substantial amount of stolen property, and what appeared to be a controlled substance (marijuana). Morgan was promptly arrested and incarcerated. The following day he moved for a reduction of bail, which had been set at $75,000. On September 25, 1975, the magistrate reduced bail to $25,000.
A two (2) count criminal complaint was filed against Morgan September 29, 1975, four (4) judicial days after his arrest; however, his appearance before the magistrate was continued until the following day because of the absence of Morgan's counsel. The next day, September 30, 1975, Morgan appeared before the magistrate and the state filed two additional criminal complaints, one charging five counts of possession of stolen property; the other, possession of a controlled substance. After that appearance Morgan was released on his own recognizance and, on October 6, 1975, the magistrate granted a motion to dismiss the three complaints because Morgan had not been brought before a magistrate 'without unnecessary delay,' as contemplated by NRS 171.178(1).
The state appealed to the district court which reversed and remanded the proceedings to the justice court for preliminary examination. Morgan then sought, and was denied, habeas relief and in this appeal his sole contention is that the delay occasioned by the state proscribes prosecution and compels us to reverse.
Although Morgan argues the delay was prejudicial, the record does not support his undocumented conclusion. NRS 171.178(1) provides that an arrested person shall be brought before a magistrate 'without unnecessary delay' after his arrest. The purpose behind this procedural requirement is to check ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deutscher v. State, 10434
...delay in arraignment did not retroactively result in prejudice so that appellant's rights were violated. Morgan v. Sheriff, 92 Nev. 544, 546, 554 P.2d 733, 735 (1976); Brown v. Justice's Court, 83 Nev. 272, 276, 428 P.2d 376, 378 (1967). 4. Probable Cause. The challenge by appellant of the ......
-
Sheriff, Clark County v. Berman
...is to prevent law enforcement personnel from conducting a "secret interrogation of persons accused of crime." Morgan v. Sheriff, 92 Nev. 544, 546, 554 P.2d 733, 734 (1976), quoting McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 344, 63 S.Ct. 608, 614, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943). Speedy arraignment is prim......
-
Powell v. State
...held that the defendant must show prejudice which resulted from the delay. See e.g., Id. at 32, 731 P.2d at 1333; Morgan v. Sheriff, 92 Nev. 544, 546, 554 P.2d 733, 734 (1976). Powell was arrested on Friday, November 3, 1989. A magistrate found probable cause to hold Powell for a preliminar......
-
Ward v. Demosthenes
...argues that he was denied an appearance before a magistrate within three working days of his arrest in violation of N.R.S. 171.178, Morgan v. Sheriff, 554 P.2d 733 (1976) and Minnick v. Mississippi, 111 S.Ct. 486 (1990). Morgan held that where there is no confession, incriminating statement......