Farrell v. State

421 P.2d 948, 83 Nev. 1, 1967 Nev. LEXIS 215
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 3, 1967
DocketNo. 5016
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 421 P.2d 948 (Farrell 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
Farrell v. State, 421 P.2d 948, 83 Nev. 1, 1967 Nev. LEXIS 215 (Neb. 1967).

Opinion

[2]*2OPINION

By the Court,

Collins, J.:

This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying appellant’s discharge on habeas corpus. We affirm the trial court’s ruling.

Appellant urged to the trial court and here insufficiency of evidence to require him to stand trial. He was charged with violation of NRS 201.230,1 a felony. The magistrate, after a preliminary examination, at which appellant was represented by counsel, found a public offense had been committed, and sufficient cause to believe appellant guilty thereof and bound him over to the district court for trial.

At the preliminary examination the child was called as a witness. In summary she testified she was invited into appellant’s house, given candy and taken into a bedroom. She further stated appellant put his hand into her panties, at least twice and maybe three times. Appellant then gave her two nickels and indicated the matter was to be a secret between them.

[3]*3Appellant, when interrogated by a detective of the Las Vegas Police Department, apparently without objection, admitted the child had been invited into his home and given candy on the day in question. He further admitted he stooped over to tie his shoelace and may have accidentally rubbed against her private parts.

This in substance was the evidence before the magistrate upon which he bound appellant over to the trial court. We said in Beasley v. Lamb, 79 Nev. 78, 378 P.2d 524 (1963), the state is required only to present enough evidence so as to support a reasonable inference that the accused committed the offense. Accord, Johnson v. State, 82 Nev. 338, 418 P.2d 495 (1966).

We think that burden has been adequately met here.

Affirmed.

Thompson, C. J., and Zenoff, J., concur.

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

Related

State v. Catanio
102 P.3d 588 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2004)
Wehrheim v. Warden, Nevada State Prison
429 P.2d 834 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1967)
Howard v. Sheriff
422 P.2d 538 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
421 P.2d 948, 83 Nev. 1, 1967 Nev. LEXIS 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrell-v-state-nev-1967.