Muller v. Sheriff, Clark County
| Decision Date | 30 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 10363,10363 |
| Citation | 572 P.2d 1245,93 Nev. 686 |
| Parties | Pierre Andree MULLER, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
An indictment charged Pierre Andree Muller with two counts of selling heroin (NRS 453.321; NRS 453.161) and one count of selling cocaine (NRS 453.321; NRS 453.171). In a pretrial habeas corpus proceeding, one of the heroin counts was dismissed. Muller has appealed from that portion of the district judge's order which denied the habeas challenge to the other two counts.
There is evidence in the transcript of the grand jury proceedings to establish probable cause to believe that on September 28, 1977, Muller sold heroin, a schedule I controlled substance (NRS 453.161), and cocaine, a schedule II controlled substance (NRS 453.171), to an undercover narcotics agent. Both drugs were delivered, and payment for each was received, simultaneously.
Appellant contends that, since the sale of the different controlled substances was consummated simultaneously in one transaction, his conduct does not constitute two separate offenses for which he may be charged. We disagree.
The sale of heroin and the sale of cocaine are distinct offenses requiring separate and different proof. See People v. Edwards, 47 Ill.App.3d 780, 6 Ill.Dec. 10, 362 N.E.2d 439 (1977); People v. Lopez, 169 Cal.App.2d 344, 337 P.2d 570 (1959). Here the record shows that "two distinct offenses were (probably) committed since the sale of each controlled substance 'requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not,' viz., the particular . . . identity of the controlled substance sold." State v. Campbell, 549 S.W.2d 952, 955 (Tenn.1977). See also, State v. Adams, 364 A.2d 1237 (Del.Super.1976).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Page v. Martinez
...finds no record of such a determination. (Doc. 25 at 4-7). This concession seems to be based on Respondent's assertion that Muller v. Sheriff, 93 Nev. 686 (1977) settles this issue and that § 453.337 is indivisible. (Doc. 18 at 11-12). However, that argument was rejected by the Ninth Circui......
-
Figueroa-Beltran v. United States
...us in determining whether substance identity is an element of the crime described in NRS 453.337.Our decision in Muller v. Sheriff , 93 Nev. 686, 687, 572 P.2d 1245, 1245 (1977), involved the unit of prosecution under NRS 453.321, which prohibits the sale of a controlled substance. The Stat......
-
United States v. Figueroa-Beltran
...facts or conditions, the ascertainment of which is left to the administrative agency. ..." Id. (citation omitted).In Muller v. Sheriff , 93 Nev. 686, 572 P.2d 1245 (1977), the Nevada Supreme Court rejected the defendant's assertion that "since the sale of ... different controlled substances......
-
Ruiz-Giel v. Holder
...is mistaken.6 In Nevada, "the particular identity of the controlled substance" is an element of the offense. See Muller v. Sheriff, Clark Cnty., 572 P.2d 1245, 1245 (Nev. 1977). Indeed, the identity of the controlled substance possessed for the purpose of sale determines whether the defenda......