Clark v. State

513 P.2d 1224, 89 Nev. 392, 1973 Nev. LEXIS 530
Nevada Supreme Court·Decided September 10, 1973·No. 6959·Published·Cited by 22 cases

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Convicted of second degree murder (NRS 200.010) and sentenced to a 10-year prison term, appellant asks us to reverse because of (1) insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction and, (2) prosecutorial misconduct.

We have examined the record and find sufficient evidence to sustain the jury verdict. See Cross v. State, 85 Nev. 580, 460 P.2d 151 (1969).

*393 The prosecutor attempted to impeach Charles Murrell, a witness for the defense, by interrogating him about a prior misdemeanor conviction. Defense counsel objected to that question and the trial judge sustained the objection. The appellant made no move for a mistrial, nor did he request to have the jury admonished, nor did he request any special instruction to the jury when the case was submitted.

As a general rule, the failure to move to strike, move for a mistrial, assign misconduct or request an instruction, will preclude appellate consideration. State v. Fouquette, 67 Nev. 505, 221 P.2d 404 (1950). See Cook v. State, 77 Nev. 83, 359 P.2d 483 (1961); Kelley v. State, 76 Nev. 65, 348 P.2d 966 (1960); O’Briant v. State, 72 Nev. 100, 295 P.2d 396 (1956); State v. Boyle, 49 Nev. 386, 248 P. 48 (1926); State v. Moore, 48 Nev. 405, 233 P. 523 (1925). Cf. Merica v. State, 87 Nev. 457, 488 P.2d 1161 (1971); Hardison v. State, 84 Nev. 125, 437 P.2d 868 (1968); Shamberg v. State, 83 Nev. 372, 432 P.2d 500 (1967); and Mathis v. State, 82 Nev. 402, 419 P.2d 775 (1966). See also, Baker v. State, supra.

Since appellant’s contentions are grounded upon a statutory prohibition and not upon a constitutional question, and it is apparent from the record that the defense was conducted with a complete understanding of the charge and without any prejudice to any substantive rights of the appellant, we reject this assignment of error because appellant failed to move for a mistrial, or for an admonishment or special instruction to the jury concerning the prosecutor’s questioning of the witness Charles Murrell.

Affirmed.

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

Clark v. State, 513 P.2d 1224, 89 Nev. 392, 1973 Nev. LEXIS 530 (Neb. 1973).

513 P.2d 1224 (Clark v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Valdez v. State
196 P.3d 465 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2008)
Harkness v. State
820 P.2d 759 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1991)
Etcheverry v. State
821 P.2d 350 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1991)
McCullough v. State
657 P.2d 1157 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1983)
Riddle v. State
613 P.2d 1031 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1980)
Hooper v. State
604 P.2d 115 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1979)
Marvin v. State
603 P.2d 1056 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1979)
Porter v. State
576 P.2d 275 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1978)
Krueger v. State
557 P.2d 717 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1976)
Geer v. State
548 P.2d 946 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1976)
Rhodes v. State
542 P.2d 196 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1975)
Dunn v. State
541 P.2d 524 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1975)
Hilt v. State
541 P.2d 645 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1975)
McCall v. State
540 P.2d 95 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1975)
Hayden v. State
538 P.2d 583 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1975)
Bishop v. State
537 P.2d 1202 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1975)
Septer v. Warden, Nevada State Prison
530 P.2d 1390 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1975)
Walker v. State
516 P.2d 739 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1973)