State v. Craig
| Decision Date | 03 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 6372,6372 |
| Citation | 87 Nev. 199,484 P.2d 719 |
| Parties | STATE of Nevada, Appellant, v. Raymond Kenneth CRAIG, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Robert List, Atty. Gen., Margie A. Richards, Deputy Atty. Gen., Carson City, Roy A. Woofter, Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for appellant.
Jack J. Pursel, Las Vegas, for respondent.
The appellate issue is whether there was an abuse of discretion when the district court dismissed an indictment against Raymond Kenneth Craig for failure to bring the accused to trial within 60 days after the finding of an indictment.
The relevant facts bearing upon this issue are these:
An indictment was returned February 19, 1970 charging Craig with the illegal sale of narcotics. NRS 453.030 and NRS 453.210(2). He was arrested on the indictment June 18, 1970. At all times between these dates he was amenable to arrest. 1
NRS 178.556 gives the court discretionary power to dismiss an indictment should the state fail to bring an accused to trial within 60 days after the finding of the indictment. Unless there is a sufficient showing of an abuse of discretion by the court in exercising that power, we will not intrude.
It is the State's contention that Craig could not have been tried within 60 days after the finding of the indictment since he had not been arrested on the indictment until after expiration of the 60 day period. The State also contends every reasonable effort was made to give Craig a speedy trial.
Neither case authority nor the record on appeal upholds the State's contentions. In a proper case, 2 the period between the finding of the indictment and the arrest will be counted in computing whether the statutory limitation has been violated. McCandless v. District Court of Polk County, 245 Iowa 599, 61 N.W.2d 674, 677 (Iowa 1953); Wilson v. Superior Court of San Francisco, 125 Cal.App.2d 749, 271 P.2d 156 (Cal.1954). It is not necessary that the accused show he was prejudiced by incarceration. The constitutional right to a speedy trial, not only protects an accused's liberty, but also affords protection from public scorn, deprivation of employment as well as other social concerns. McGee v. Sheriff, Clark County, 86 Nev. 421, 470 P.2d 132 (1970). Where McGee was concerned with the constitutional right to a speedy trial, NRS 178.556 is relevant in evaluating whether that right has been violated. In the circumstances disclosed by this record it was permissible for the court to start the 60 day period running from February 19 when the indictment was returned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Inzunza
...(reviewing for abuse of discretion a denial of motion to dismiss an indictment based on grand juror bias); cf. State v. Craig, 87 Nev. 199, 200, 484 P.2d 719, 719 (1971) (reviewing for abuse of discretion a grant of motion to dismiss an indictment based on a statutory speedy trial violation......
-
Williams v. State
...to dismiss based on a statutory speedy trial violation under NRS 178.556(1) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Craig, 87 Nev. 199, 200, 484 P.2d 719, 719 (1971).Here, approximately two years elapsed between the initial arraignment and trial. The district court denied Williams’......
- Hartford Ins. Group v. Statewide Appliances, Inc.
-
Broadhead v. Sheriff, Clark County
...indictment. These facts destroy any contention that a reasonable effort was made to afford appellant a speedy trial. Cf. State v. Craig, 87 Nev. ---, 484 P.2d 719 (1971). 3. The right to a speedy trial, whether within the statutory 60 days or within a reasonable time, is not jurisdictional ......