Curtis D. v. State

646 P.2d 547, 98 Nev. 272, 1982 Nev. LEXIS 447
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedJune 15, 1982
DocketNo. 13054
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 646 P.2d 547 (Curtis D. 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
Curtis D. v. State, 646 P.2d 547, 98 Nev. 272, 1982 Nev. LEXIS 447 (Neb. 1982).

Opinion

[273]*273OPINION

Per Curiam:

Following a contested hearing before a juvenile referee, appellant was found guilty of misdemeanor battery and first degree kidnaping for the perpetration of these crimes upon a thirteen-year-old female.1 The district court adopted the referee’s findings, adjudicated appellant a delinquent and ordered him committed to the Nevada Youth Training Center at Elko, Nevada.

On the afternoon of the assault, the victim was walking alone on a Las Vegas residential street. A pick-up truck, occupied by appellant and two other juvenile males, stopped beside her. In response to a query by appellant, the victim approached the truck, whereupon the driver and the other juvenile forced her into the cab of the vehicle.

The victim was then transported a short distance into the desert where she was taken from the truck. While one of his companions held her, appellant and the other youth cut her on the face, arms and stomach. The assault ended when the victim was pushed and struck her head on a rock. The blow rendered her unconscious. When she regained consciousness the day was becoming dark and the truck was gone.

On appeal, appellant contends that the circumstances do not support a separate charge of first degree kidnaping and there is insufficient evidence to establish his complicity in that crime. We disagree.

[274]*274A separate charge of first degree kidnaping is proper if the movement of the victim is not merely incidental to the associated offense and it results in substantially increased risk of harm. Wright v. State, 94 Nev. 415, 581 P.2d 442 (1978). Whether the movement of the victim is incidental to the associated offense and whether the risk of harm is substantially increased thereby are questions of fact to be determined by the trier of fact in all but the clearest cases. Sheriff v. Medberry, 96 Nev. 202, 606 P.2d 181 (1980).

Ordinarily, movement of the victim in the commission of a battery is not incidental to that offense. Moreover, in the instant case, it is uncontroverted that the victim was abandoned, unconscious, on the isolated perimeter of the desert as dark approached. Such evidence supports the determination that the movement of the victim substantially increased the risk of harm to her. A separate charge of first degree kidnaping is proper.

Similarly, the record supports appellant’s complicity in the kidnaping. The mere presence of appellant at the time his companions forced the victim into the truck is not sufficient to make him an accessory and therefore a principal under NRS 195.020.2 However, it was appellant’s query that induced the victim to approach the truck. She was detained in the cab by appellant and one companion while the other drove into the desert. Appellant was not merely present, he was an active participant in her forcible transportation and the events that followed. His presence, together with the other circumstances, both during and after the kidnaping, is sufficient to support an inference that he was a party to the offense. See Baker v. Sheriff, 93 Nev. 11, 558 P.2d 629 (1977); Robertson v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 681, 462 P.2d 528 (1969).

The other claims of error raised by appellant fail to demonstrate prejudicial error or are without merit. Accordingly, we [275]*275affirm the adjudication of delinquency and commitment order of the district court.

Gunderson, C. J., Manoukian, Springer, and Mowbray, JJ., and Zenoff, Sr. J.,3 concur.

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

Related

Jardine v. Williams
D. Nevada, 2025
Stewart v. Najera
D. Nevada, 2024
GUERRINA (ROBERT) VS. STATE
2018 NV 45 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2018)
Guerrina v. State
419 P.3d 705 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2018)
STEWART (TOMMY) VS. STATE
2017 NV 20 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2017)
Villa (Leslie) v. State
Nevada Supreme Court, 2016
GONZALES (NOEL) VS. STATE
2015 NV 49 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2015)
Gonzales v. State
Court of Appeals of Nevada, 2015
Gonzales v. State
2015 NV 49 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2015)
Jardine (Hector) v. State
Nevada Supreme Court, 2014
State v. Jernigan (Darnell)
Nevada Supreme Court, 2014
Wright v. State
799 P.2d 548 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
646 P.2d 547, 98 Nev. 272, 1982 Nev. LEXIS 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-d-v-state-nev-1982.