Hilkert v. Sheriff
This text of 561 P.2d 448 (Hilkert 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.
Opinion
OPINION
Pursuant to a True Bill returned by the Clark County Grand Jury, William D. Hilkert, III, was indicted for failing to report campaign contributions and failing to report campaign expenses, gross misdemeanors under NRS 294A.010 and 294A.020.1
[154]*154Hilkert, who had been a candidate for the Nevada State Senate in 1976, filed a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus contending that the indictment was fatally defective because it did not allege that he received campaign contributions or that he incurred campaign expenses. He also argued the statutes were constitutionally infirm. The district judge denied habeas relief and, in this appeal, Hilkert reasserts the same contentions.
We have previously held that an indictment accusing a public administrator of failing to comply with a statute requiring him to file quarterly reports of all fees and compensation received in his official capacity was defective because it did not allege that he had received such fees or compensation. Adler v. Sheriff, 92 Nev. 436, 552 P.2d 334 (1976).
Here, there is no allegation that Hilkert either received contributions, or incurred expenses; thus, we have the same deficiency which proved to be fatal in Adler. Accordingly, we reverse.
In view of our ruling, it is unnecessary for us to consider the constitutional challenge to the statute. Cf. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
561 P.2d 448, 93 Nev. 153, 1977 Nev. LEXIS 496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilkert-v-sheriff-nev-1977.