Harris v. State

756 P.2d 556, 104 Nev. 246, 1988 Nev. LEXIS 37
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedJune 24, 1988
DocketNo. 18333
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 756 P.2d 556 (Harris 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
Harris v. State, 756 P.2d 556, 104 Nev. 246, 1988 Nev. LEXIS 37 (Neb. 1988).

Opinion

[247]*247OPINION

Per Curiam:

Appellants, sureties for the defendant Rupert Harris, were forced to make payment to respondent, the State of Nevada, on Harris’ forfeited bail bond when he failed to appear for trial in August, 1985. Appellants claim the district court erred in denying their motion to set aside the forfeiture. The motion was premised on noncompliance with NRS 178.508. An affidavit of mailing did not accompany the Notice of Intent to Forfeit, as required by the statute.1 Appellants alleged no other grounds for setting aside the forfeiture.

Appellants concede that they received actual notice of the intent to forfeit the bond and were not prejudiced by the lack of compliance with NRS 178.508. Where there is actual notice, lack of prejudice, and substantial compliance with the statute, a district court’s order forfeiting a bail bond will not be reversed. However, we do not condone the district court’s failure to comply with the requirements of NRS 178.508. Forfeitures are not favored at law, and statutes imposing them must be strictly construed. Wilshire Insurance Co. v. State, 94 Nev. 546, 582 P.2d 372 (1978). While Wilshire did not concern the technical requirements of an affidavit of mailing, the reasoning is valid. We hold that district courts must adhere to the provisions of NRS 178.508; an affidavit of mailing shall accompany the notice of intent to forfeit a bond, as the language of the statute requires.

In this case, appellants were not prejudiced. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court.

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

Related

State Vs. Eclectic Servs., Inc.
Nevada Supreme Court, 2019
International Fidelity Insurance v. State
967 P.2d 804 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1998)
Fortis Benefits Insurance v. Johnson
966 F. Supp. 987 (D. Nevada, 1997)
State v. American Bankers Insurance
802 P.2d 1276 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
756 P.2d 556, 104 Nev. 246, 1988 Nev. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-state-nev-1988.