Robertson v. Sheriff, Clark County
| Decision Date | 15 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 6026,6026 |
| Citation | 85 Nev. 681,462 P.2d 528 |
| Parties | Eugene ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
James D. Santini, Public Defender, and H. Heon Simon, Deputy Public Defender, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen., Carson City, George E. Franklin, Jr., Dist. Atty., and George H. Spizzirri, Deputy Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.
Eugene Robertson was charged with the crime of robbery. After a preliminary hearing he was bound over to the district court and held to answer the charge. Prior to entering his plea in district court, he filed a habeas petition contesting the sufficiency of the evidence presented during the preliminary hearing to establish the necessary 'probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant has committed it.' NRS 171.206. We affirm the district judge's order denying the petition for habeas.
The main thrust of Robertson's argument is that the evidence presented to the magistrate merely establishes that Robertson was present during the commission of the crime, but that there is nothing in the record of the preliminary hearing to show that he 'aided or abetted' in the commission of the crime. NRS 195.020. 1
At a preliminary hearing there need not be produced the quantum of proof required at a trial to establish the guilt of the offender beyond a reasonable doubt. As this court ruled in Maskaly v. State, 85 Nev. ---, ---, 450 P.2d 790, 792 (1969):
'It is well established that either in a preliminary hearing or in proceedings before a grand jury there must be evidence adduced which establishes probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant has committed it.'
In Marcum v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. ---, ---, 451 P.2d 845, 847 (1969), we said:
See also Brown v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. ---, 459 P.2d 215 (1969); McKenna v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. ---, 458 P.2d 358 (1969).
In this case the record shows that Robertson was present with four other men when one of the group accosted the victim, Edward Bumbera, produced a pistol, and robbed Bumbera of his money and wrist watch. Bumbera and his companion, Shirley Mae Wesley, testified at the preliminary hearing. There was no doubt as to the identify of the robber and the presence of Robertson with his three other companions. But Robertson claims that mere presence under the facts developed is not enough to establish probable cause that Robertson was involved in the commission of the crime. We believe it is.
As the court said in People v. Adams...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State
...103 Nev. 527, 529, 746 P.2d 149, 150 (1987). 24.Ford, 122 Nev. at 804, 138 P.3d at 506 (citing Bridges, 116 Nev. at 761, 6 P.3d at 1007). 25.Robertson v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 681, 683, 462 P.2d 528, 529 (1969). 26.Ford, 122 Nev. at 804, 138 P.3d at 506 (citing Bridges, 116 Nev. at 761, 6 P.3d a......
-
Edwards v. State
...inferred.' Bayman v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 86, 506 P.2d 1259 (1973); Johnstone v. Lamb, 89 Nev. 38, 505 P.2d 596 (1973); Robertson v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 681, 462 P.2d 528 (1969). In this regard, it should particularly be noted that Officer Norberg testified appellant waived his right to silence, s......
-
Bowser v. State
...not to give the defendant's proposed instruction on "mere presence" when the actual instruction adequately covers the law."); Robertson v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 681, 683, 462 F.2d 528, 529 (1969) (stating the rule the jury instruction here was derived from). Fifth, no error occurred when the dis......
-
Kinsey v. Sheriff, Washoe County, 6554
...must the state produce the quantum of proof required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Robertson v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 681, 462 P.2d 528 (1969). To commit an accused for trial, the State is not required to negate all inferences which might explain his conduct, b......