Serrano v. State
Decision Date | 27 November 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 5434,5434 |
Citation | 447 P.2d 497,84 Nev. 676 |
Parties | Thomas SERRANO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
F. DeArmond Sharp, Robert E. Rose, Reno, for appellant.
Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen., Carson City, William J. Raggio, Washoe County Dist. Atty., Reno, for respondent.
Early in the evening of September 3, 1966 Barry Forget and Thomas Serrano engaged in an argument while in a Reno bar. Forget threatened to kill Serrano, but upon the intervention of the bartender the two calmed themselves and shook hands. After more drinking Serrano left the premises but as he did so Forget followed him, apparently to emphasize his regret at the threat, and again they shook hands in a friendly manner. However, 45 minutes later Serrano returned while Forget was lighting a cigarette for a female patron, his back to the entrance. Serrano was carrying a .45 caliber pistol. He said, 'Now who did you say you were going to kill.' He then shot Forget. Serrano testified that he thought Forget made a move for his gun. Serrano fired the entire clip of six bullets, hitting Forget three times, then beat him over the head with the pistol until it broke. Forget died 11 days later. Serrano was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole. He asserts on appeal that his conviction should be reversed because of several alleged errors committed by the trial court as hereinafter discussed.
1. The state used the testimony of one of Serrano's witnesses before the grand jury to allegedly impeach the same witness when he testified at the trial. The grand jury testimony took place after an indictment had been returned. See Serrano v. State, 83 Nev. 324, 429 P.2d 831 (1967). The question now is whether the post-indictment testimony should have been suppressed.
At the trial the witness was asked what Serrano had said to him after the initial argument with Forget. He replied that he did not recall. Then his grand jury testimony was used to show that he had previously answered the same question by stating that Serrano said, 'Well, it's just some musclehead trying to push people around.'
The post-indictment testimony before the grand jury, even if it were illegally obtained, can still be used to impeach the witness on a matter not related to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954), holds that illegally obtained evidence relevant to the guilt or innocence of the defendant may be used provided its use is confined to impeaching the credibility of the defendant or another witness. The issue is narrowed in this case because the subject matter is collateral, not direct, does not go to guilt or innocence, nor does the testimony necessarily impeach the witness because it was used largely to refresh his recollection. See also Note, Limited Use of Unlawfully Obtained Statements to Impeach Defendant's Credibility, 13 N.Y.L. Forum 146 (1967); Note, Impeaching the Prosecution Witness: Access to Grand Jury Testimony, 28 U.Pitt.L.Rev. 338 (1966).
2. The prosecutor remarked in the presence of the jury while the defendant was testifying that the defendant was 'coached.' The remark was ordered stricken and the jury admonished to disregard it. Under the circumstances of this case the statement was error but we deem it harmless. Mears v. State, 83 Nev. 3, 422 P.2d 230 (1967); Pacheco v. State, 82 Nev. 172, 414 P.2d 100 (1966); Kuk v. State, 80 Nev. 291, 392 P.2d 630 (1964); Dotson v. State, 80 Nev. 42, 389 P.2d 77 (1964); Garner v. State, 78 Nev. 366, 374 P.2d 525 (1962); State v. Helm, 66 Nev. 286, 209 P.2d 187 (1949); State v. Teeter, 65 Nev. 584, 642--647, 200 P.2d 657 (1948); State v. Sheeley, 63 Nev. 88, 162 P.2d 96 (1945); State v. Lindsay, 63 Nev. 40, 161 P.2d 351 (1945); Annotation, 29 A.L.R.2d 996, 1022 (1953).
3. After the jury retired for deliberation they sent a query to the judge as follows:
'Does imprisonment without possibility of parole mean exactly what it states or is ultimate parole possible; and * * * life with possibility of parole, what is the minimum number of years of imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole?'
Following is the court's reply to the jury:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Ramos
...State v. Rollins (Mo.1970) 449 S.W.2d 585, 591; Grandsinger v. State (1955) 161 Neb. 419, 73 N.W.2d 632, 650-651; Serrano v. State (1968) 84 Nev. 676, 447 P.2d 497, 499; State v. White (1958) 27 N.J. 158, 142 A.2d 65, 71-77; State v. Jones (1979) 296 N.C. 495, 251 S.E.2d 425, 427-429; McKee......
-
California v. Ramos
...denied, 352 U.S. 880, 77 S.Ct. 104, 1 L.Ed.2d 81 (1956); Summers v. State, 467 P.2d 98, 100 (Nev.1970) (reaffirming Serrano v. State, 84 Nev. 676, 447 P.2d 497 (1968), which instructed jury to assume that life without parole means exactly that); State v. Conklin, 54 N.J. 540, 547, 258 A.2d ......
-
Wiley v. State, 95-DP-00149-SCT
...consequences. Nothing can be permitted to weaken the jurors' sense of obligation in the performance of their duties."); Serrano v. State, 84 Nev. 676, 680, 447 P.2d 497, 499 (1968) (" '[E]ligibility for parole begins when a minimum of ten years has been served. That's the only thing I can t......
-
Jones v. State, 12844
...101 Nev. at 57, 692 P.2d 503, we reaffirmed our holdings in Summers v. State, 86 Nev. 210, 467 P.2d 98 (1970), Serrano v. State, 84 Nev. 676, 447 P.2d 497 (1968), and Bean v. State, 81 Nev. 25, 398 P.2d 251 (1965), cert. denied, Bean v. Nevada, 384 U.S. 1012, 86 S.Ct. 1932, 16 L.Ed.2d 1030 ......