Allen v. State

579 P.2d 771, 94 Nev. 285, 1978 Nev. LEXIS 542
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedJune 7, 1978
DocketNo. 9799
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 579 P.2d 771 (Allen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Allen v. State, 579 P.2d 771, 94 Nev. 285, 1978 Nev. LEXIS 542 (Neb. 1978).

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Philip Steven Allen stands convicted, by jury verdict, of grand larceny, a felony under NRS 205.220.1

On November 19, 1974, appellant and another took a 1968 Plymouth Road Runner automobile from the O. M. Gann Auto Sales lot in Las Vegas, Nevada, agreeing to return it after making a compression check of the engine. The automobile was later discovered in appellant’s possession at the time of his arrest in Van Nuys, California on January 17, 1975.

Appellant here contends admission of evidence concerning other unrelated crimes on rebuttal was improper. We disagree.

On direct examination, appellant testified extensively regarding his use of aliases. On rebuttal, the state introduced evidence of other criminal conduct to impeach that testimony.

Although appellant was impeached as to collateral matters, we believe “[t]he impeachment process here undoubtedly provided valuable aid to the jury in assessing [appellant’s] credibility, . . .” Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 225 (1971). Cf. NRS 50.085. Thus, the evidence was more probative than prejudicial and, therefore, was properly admitted. See NRS 48.035.

[287]*287We find Mr. Chief Justice Burger’s rationale for admission of such evidence in Harris pertinent to the factual posture of this case:

Every criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense, or to refuse to do so. But that privilege cannot be construed to include the right to commit perjury. [Citations omitted.] Having voluntarily taken the stand, [appellant] was under an obligation to speak truthfully and accurately, and the prosecution here did no more than utilize the traditional truth-testing devices of the adversary process. Id., at 225.

Other issues raised by appellant are without merit.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jezdik v. State
110 P.3d 1058 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
579 P.2d 771, 94 Nev. 285, 1978 Nev. LEXIS 542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-state-nev-1978.