State v. Vertrees
| Decision Date | 02 December 1910 |
| Docket Number | 1,878. |
| Citation | 112 P. 42,33 Nev. 509 |
| Parties | STATE v. VERTREES. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Esmeralda County.
Jesse C. Vertrees was convicted of maliciously threatening an injury with intent to extort money, and he appeals. Affirmed.
T. L Folley, for appellant. R. C. Stoddard, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
The defendant was jointly indicted with Annie May Vertrees, his wife, for the crime of maliciously threatening an injury to the person of one Charles Dahlstrom with intent thereby to extort the sum of $50 from the said Dahlstrom. The appellant was granted a separate trial, was convicted of the crime charged, and sentenced to be confined in the county jail of Esmeralda county for the term of one year and to pay a fine of $500. From the judgment of conviction and from an order denying his motion for new trial, the defendant has appealed. Error is assigned in the admission of certain testimony tending to establish other similar offenses committed about the same time as the offense charged in the indictment. In this character of cases where intent is the gist of the action, evidence of similar offenses is admissible for the purpose of establishing criminal intent, and the ruling of the court in this respect was not error. Rice on Evidence vol. 3, § 155, p. 216; Crum v. State, 148 Ind. 401 47 N.E. 833; People v. Cook, 148 Cal. 334, 83 P. 43; State v. McMahon, 17 Nev. 365, 30 P. 1000; State v. Roberts, 28 Nev. 374, 82 P. 100.
Error is assigned in admitting in evidence the testimony of a witness relative to the conduct and statements of the said Annie May Vertrees. It was the theory of the state, and the evidence tended to establish the fact, that the said Annie May Vertrees was an accessory before the fact, and upon this theory her acts and declarations in the consummation of the unlawful design were competent to go to the jury. State v. Ward, 19 Nev. 308, 10 P. 133. Error is assigned in the overruling of the motion of defendant's counsel to strike out certain remarks made by the assistant district attorney in his closing argument to the jury and to admonish the jury to disregard such statement. The bill of exceptions does not contain in full the motion of counsel for defendant or the ruling of the court, nor does it contain in full all of the evidence of the case. In the absence of these facts we cannot state that the remarks were so prejudicial as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. State
...102 (1923); Richardson v. State, 91 Nev. 266, 534 P.2d 913 (1975); Seim v. State, 95 Nev. ----, 590 P.2d 1152 (1979).2 State v. Vertrees, 33 Nev. 509, 112 P. 42 (1910); State v. McMahon, 17 Nev. 365, 30 P. 1000 (1883); State v. Elges, 69 Nev. 330, 251 P.2d 590 (1952); Wallace v. State, 77 N......
-
People v. Folignos
...79 Vt. 463, 65 A. 532,9 Ann. Cas. 194;State v. Lewis, 96 Iowa, 286, 65 N. W. 295;Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713;State v. Vertrees, 33 Nev. 509, 112 P. 42. The offense with which section 93a of the Criminal Code deals is not established until it is proven that the accused sent the......
-
Brown v. State
...v. McMahon, 17 Nev. 365, 30 P. 1000 (intent--absence of accident); State v. Roberts, 28 Nev. 350, 82 P. 100 (identity); State v. Vertrees, 33 Nev. 509, 112 P. 42 (intent); State v. Cerfoglio, 46 Nev. 332, 205 P. 791, 213 P. 102, 27 A.L.R. 848 (motive--intent); State v. Elges, 69 Nev. 330, 2......
-
Lindsay v. State
...and MOWBRAY, JJ., and MANN, District Judge, concur. 1 State v. Cerfoglio, 46 Nev. 332, 205 P. 791, 213 P. 102 (1923).2 State v. Vertress, 33 Nev. 509, 112 P. 42 (1910); State v. McMahon, 17 Nev. 365, 30 P. 1000 (1883); State v. Elges, 69 Nev. 330, 251 P.2d 590 (1952); Wallace v. State, 77 N......