State v. Tecope
Decision Date | 01 November 1932 |
Docket Number | 2973. |
Citation | 15 P.2d 677,54 Nev. 308 |
Parties | STATE v. TECOPE. |
Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Clark County; Wm. E. Orr, Judge.
Steve Tecope was convicted of first degree murder, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Noland & Noland, of Las Vegas, for appellant.
Gray Mashburn, Atty. Gen., W. T. Mathews, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Harley Harmon, Dist. Atty., of Las Vegas, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of murder of the first degree in the Eighth judicial district court in and for Clark county. The jury fixed his punishment at imprisonment for life. He was sentenced accordingly. From the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial he has prosecuted this appeal.
The crime for which appellant was convicted was alleged to have been committed by shooting one Fred Haganuma on the 27th day of July, 1931. The shooting occurred at the place where the latter resided near the little town of Searchlight in the southern part of Clark county, in this state. The deceased was a Japanese. The accused is an Indian. Shortly after the shooting, Haganuma was taken to Searchlight and placed under the care of a physician. He died at that place on July 30 1931. The attending physician testified that the cause of his death was septic pneumonia induced by a gunshot wound in the chest.
Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and judgment. The circumstances surrounding the shooting as proved by the state are not abundant. Only one witness, a Japanese named K. Ishibe, was produced by the state to establish appellant's connection with the shooting. He testified through an interpreter in substance as follows:
On cross-examination the witness testified:
Ishibe was the only witness on the part of the state to testify as to what occurred at the time of the shooting. There was no other testimony tending to connect the appellant with the shooting. The appellant did not testify, and produced but one witness, a physician who testified that a wound such as the deceased received could cause death but was not necessarily fatal. This witness testified also that in his opinion it was not possible without a slide examination, and merely from the pulse, respiration, and temperature, to tell whether or not a case of pneumonia is septic or otherwise, but that, if a doctor, a graduate of a medical school, testified that he had in his charge for over a period of three days an individual who had received such a wound and had died from septic pneumonia caused by the wound, that could be possible.
We think the testimony on the part of the state is sufficient to sustain the verdict. It is true, no previous relations between appellant and deceased were established, and nothing adduced to show motive on the part of the accused. But motive is not essential to a conviction. People v. Durrant, 116 Cal. 179, 48 P. 75.
The reason is well stated in People v. Tom Woo, 181 Cal. 315, 184 P. 389, 394. The court said:
Appellant in the case before us stresses as a fatal weakness in the evidence the fact that Ishibe did not testify that he saw the appellant fire the shot; and that the district attorney did not ask him to do this. It is contended therefore that the evidence discloses nothing more than a mere opportunity on the part of appellant to commit the crime, which is not sufficient. We, of course, cannot tell why the witness did not so testify or why the district attorney did not question him in this respect. However, it may be that the witness did not actually see the shot fired and that the district attorney was aware of this fact. But, be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Dahlstrom
...322 Ill. 295, 153 N.E. 389; Gannon v. People, 127 Ill. 507, 21 N.E. 525; State v. Vanella, 40 Mont. 326, 106 P. 364; State v. Tecope, 54 Nev. 308, 15 P.2d 677. INSTRUCTIONS 3a. In the event of a new trial, the jury should be instructed specifically with respect to the provisions of § 611.02......
-
State v. Gambetta
... ... Nev. 125, quoting with approval from the opinion in ... Clinton v. State, 56 Fla. 57, 47 So. 389, statements ... like the above were held not to violate the statutory [66 Nev ... 333] prohibition. See also State v. Williams, 35 ... Nev. 276, 129 P. 317; State v. Tecope, 54 Nev. 308, ... 15 P.2d 677. In view of these holdings it becomes unnecessary ... to discuss the authorities from other jurisdictions advanced ... by appellant. In virtually all of such cases however the ... impropriety of such statements arose by reason of the special ... circumstances of ... ...