Hamlet v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Hamlet v. State

447 P.2d 492, 84 Nev. 699, 1968 Nev. LEXIS 436

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 9, 1968

DocketNo. 5570

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 447 P.2d 492 (Hamlet 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

Hamlet v. State, 447 P.2d 492, 84 Nev. 699, 1968 Nev. LEXIS 436 (Neb. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

We are asked to set aside the appellant’s conviction for possession of heroin on the ground that the prosecutor referred to the fact that the appellant, at about the same time he was arrested for that crime, also was arrested for possession of narcotics paraphernalia, a separate and distinct offense. Such a reference was made by the prosecutor during his opening [700]*700statement, and again during jury summation, each time without objection by defense counsel. When testimony was offered on the point, objection was interposed by defense counsel, sustained by the court, and the jury admonished to disregard. The evidence of appellant’s guilt is overwhelming. In this context we are unable to find prejudicial error.

Affirmed.

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

OPINION

Per Curiam:

We are asked to set aside the appellant’s conviction for possession of heroin on the ground that the prosecutor referred to the fact that the appellant, at about the same time he was arrested for that crime, also was arrested for possession of narcotics paraphernalia, a separate and distinct offense. Such a reference was made by the prosecutor during his opening [700]*700statement, and again during jury summation, each time without objection by defense counsel. When testimony was offered on the point, objection was interposed by defense counsel, sustained by the court, and the jury admonished to disregard. The evidence of appellant’s guilt is overwhelming. In this context we are unable to find prejudicial error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

447 P.2d 492, 84 Nev. 699, 1968 Nev. LEXIS 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamlet-v-state-nev-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack