Grant v. Sheriff

Nevada Supreme Court

Grant v. Sheriff

591 P.2d 1145, 95 Nev. 211, 1979 Nev. LEXIS 567

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1979

DocketNo. 11498

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 591 P.2d 1145 (Grant 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

Grant v. Sheriff, 591 P.2d 1145, 95 Nev. 211, 1979 Nev. LEXIS 567 (Neb. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

This appeal is from an order which denied a pretrial habeas corpus challenge to the portion of an indictment charging that Sandra Jean Grant committed the crimes of (1) swindling (NRS 465.070), a felony; and, (2) conspiracy to swindle (NRS 199.480; and NRS 465.070), a gross misdemeanor. The offenses were alleged to have occurred June 24, 1977, in a scheme designed to defraud the Churchhill Downs Race and Sports Book in Las Vegas.

Grant contends we are compelled to reverse because there is no evidence in the transcript of the grand jury proceedings of when or on what date the alleged offenses might have occurred. Although we have consistently held that the evidence in support of an indictment need only be slight, it remains incumbent upon the prosecution to produce some evidence that supports the accusation. See Franklin v. State, 89 Nev. 382, 513 P.2d 1252 (1973).

Here, evidence of the date or dates of the alleged offenses would be essential in order to apprise appellant of the facts surrounding the alleged events. The absence of such evidence is fatal to the indictment. See Simpson v. District Court, 88 Nev. 654, 503 P.2d 1225 (1972). Cf. Adler v. Sheriff, 92 Nev. 436, 552 P.2d 334 (1976). Accordingly, we reverse without prejudice to the right of the prosecuting attorney to initiate new charges within 15 days after remittitur issues. Cf. McGee v. Sheriff, 86 Nev. 421, 470 P.2d 132 (1970).

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

OPINION

Per Curiam:

This appeal is from an order which denied a pretrial habeas corpus challenge to the portion of an indictment charging that Sandra Jean Grant committed the crimes of (1) swindling (NRS 465.070), a felony; and, (2) conspiracy to swindle (NRS 199.480; and NRS 465.070), a gross misdemeanor. The offenses were alleged to have occurred June 24, 1977, in a scheme designed to defraud the Churchhill Downs Race and Sports Book in Las Vegas.

Grant contends we are compelled to reverse because there is no evidence in the transcript of the grand jury proceedings of when or on what date the alleged offenses might have occurred. Although we have consistently held that the evidence in support of an indictment need only be slight, it remains incumbent upon the prosecution to produce some evidence that supports the accusation. See Franklin v. State, 89 Nev. 382, 513 P.2d 1252 (1973).

Here, evidence of the date or dates of the alleged offenses would be essential in order to apprise appellant of the facts surrounding the alleged events. The absence of such evidence is fatal to the indictment. See Simpson v. District Court, 88 Nev. 654, 503 P.2d 1225 (1972). Cf. Adler v. Sheriff, 92 Nev. 436, 552 P.2d 334 (1976). Accordingly, we reverse without prejudice to the right of the prosecuting attorney to initiate new charges within 15 days after remittitur issues. Cf. McGee v. Sheriff, 86 Nev. 421, 470 P.2d 132 (1970).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

591 P.2d 1145, 95 Nev. 211, 1979 Nev. LEXIS 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-sheriff-nev-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack