Bielling v. Sheriff

Nevada Supreme Court

Bielling v. Sheriff

508 P.2d 546, 89 Nev. 112, 1973 Nev. LEXIS 437

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 27, 1973

DocketNo. 7129

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 508 P.2d 546 (Bielling v. Sheriff) 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

Bielling v. Sheriff, 508 P.2d 546, 89 Nev. 112, 1973 Nev. LEXIS 437 (Neb. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

[113]*113OPINION

Per Curiam:

In this appeal from the denial of pre-trial habeas relief appellant’s sole contention is that the information, charging him with involuntary manslaughter, a felony under NRS 200.070, is fatally defective. We agree.

Respondent concedes that the information filed herein only charges appellant with ordinary negligence. While many states have enacted legislation which permit convictions in vehicular homicide cases without the showing of criminal negligence, Nevada has not done so. “The authorities are agreed, in the absence of statutory regulations denouncing certain acts as criminal, that in order to impose criminal liability for a homicide caused by negligence, there must be a higher degree of negligence than is required to establish negligent default on a mere civil issue.” People v. Penny, 285 P.2d 926, 937 (Cal. 1955). Cf. State v. Lewis, 59 Nev. 262, 91 P.2d 820 (1939).

“In every crime or public offense there must exist a union, or joint operation of act and intention, or criminal negligence.’’’’ NRS 193.190. In order to properly charge appellant with the offense of involuntary manslaughter, the information must specify the acts of criminal negligence upon which the state is relying to try to obtain a conviction. See Simpson v. District Court, 88 Nev. 654, 503 P.2d 1225 (1972).

We reverse, without prejudice to a new and sufficient accusation.

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

[113]*113OPINION

Per Curiam:

In this appeal from the denial of pre-trial habeas relief appellant’s sole contention is that the information, charging him with involuntary manslaughter, a felony under NRS 200.070, is fatally defective. We agree.

Respondent concedes that the information filed herein only charges appellant with ordinary negligence. While many states have enacted legislation which permit convictions in vehicular homicide cases without the showing of criminal negligence, Nevada has not done so. “The authorities are agreed, in the absence of statutory regulations denouncing certain acts as criminal, that in order to impose criminal liability for a homicide caused by negligence, there must be a higher degree of negligence than is required to establish negligent default on a mere civil issue.” People v. Penny, 285 P.2d 926, 937 (Cal. 1955). Cf. State v. Lewis, 59 Nev. 262, 91 P.2d 820 (1939).

“In every crime or public offense there must exist a union, or joint operation of act and intention, or criminal negligence.’’’’ NRS 193.190. In order to properly charge appellant with the offense of involuntary manslaughter, the information must specify the acts of criminal negligence upon which the state is relying to try to obtain a conviction. See Simpson v. District Court, 88 Nev. 654, 503 P.2d 1225 (1972).

We reverse, without prejudice to a new and sufficient accusation.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 P.2d 546, 89 Nev. 112, 1973 Nev. LEXIS 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bielling-v-sheriff-nev-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack