Robertson v. Sheriff, Clark County, 9704
| Decision Date | 15 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 9704,9704 |
| Parties | Lane ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
A True Bill, returned by the Clark County Grand Jury, resulted in Lane Robertson being indicted on five counts of robbery with use of a deadly weapon (NRS 200.380 and 193.165) and one count of possession of stolen credit cards (NRS 205.730). A pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus contended the indictment must be dismissed because (1) there was insufficient evidence presented to the grand jury to establish probable cause to believe he participated in the alleged robbery; and, (2) an element of robbery is absent in the facts as presented by the prosecuting attorney. Habeas was denied and Robertson has appealed.
The record establishes that on December 21, 1976, two or three men wearing ski masks entered the Nite-Twain Bar in Las Vegas, robbed the customers, and took over $1500 from the cash register. The bartender was in the men's room when the robbers entered the bar; he heard the robbery in progress and remained in the men's room out of fear.
1. A search of Robertson's apartment, made pursuant to a warrant issued seven weeks after the incident, resulted in the seizure of three ski masks, later identified as the same type used by the perpetrators of the crimes, and sixteen identification and credit cards taken from the victims. When Robertson was booked the police found another credit card taken at the Nite-Twain Bar. Such evidence supports a reasonable inference that Robertson participated in the robberies.
2. In support of his second contention Robertson argues that, since the bartender was in the restroom throughout the incident, the $1500 was not taken from the person or presence (of the bartender) as required by NRS 200.380; 1 therefore, the bartender was never robbed. We cannot ascribe to such a narrow definition of "presence." The generally accepted definition states that "(a) thing is in the presence of a person, in respect to robbery, which is so within his reach, inspection, observation or control, that he could, if not overcome by violence or prevented by fear, retain his possession of it." ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hayes
...State v. Glymph (1977) 222 Kan. 73, 563 P.2d 422, 424; Foster v. State (1983) 297 Md. 191, 464 A.2d 986, 998; Robertson v. Sheriff, Clark Cty. (1977) 93 Nev. 300, 565 P.2d 647, 648; State v. Carcerano (1964) 238 Or. 208, 390 P.2d 923, 928; State v. Deso (1938) 110 Vt. 1, 1 A.2d 710, 712; St......
-
Guy v. State
...or control, that he could, if not overcome by violence or prevented by fear, retain his possession of it.' " Robertson v. Sheriff, 93 Nev. 300, 302, 565 P.2d 647, 648 (1977) (quoting Commonwealth v. Homer, 235 Mass. 526, 127 N.E. 517, 520 (1920)). Applying this definition, we upheld a trial......
-
Hubbard v. State
...or control, that he could, if not overcome by violence or prevented by fear, retain his possession of it." Robertson v. Sheriff, Clark Cty., 93 Nev. 300, 302, 565 P.2d 647, 648 (1977). In Robertson, the Nevada Supreme Court adopted this broad definition of presence, concluding that the defe......
-
United States v. Avery
...through fear of great bodily injury or (2) force that cannot be considered nominal even under Johnson 2010. See Robertson v. Sheriff, Clark County, 565 P.2d 647 (Nev. 1977) (finding that money taken from a cash register during an armed robbery at a bar was taken from the "presence" of the b......