Holland v. State
This text of 414 P.2d 590 (Holland 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.
Opinions
[192]*192OPINION
By the Court,
The appellant, Gerald Alfred Holland, was charged in a two count information with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury upon the person of Paul S. Cunningham.
On the evening of January 13, 1965, Cunningham stopped his automobile at an intersection stop sign in Las Vegas. A car drove up and blocked his car from proceeding. He testified that he then opened his car door and asked the driver of the automobile, which was blocking his path, to move on. The driver of the car sat up, leveled a revolver at Cunningham and fired it. Cunningham managed to roll out of the car before four more shots were fired. These struck the windshield and driver’s seat of Cunningham’s car where he had been seated.
Holland was tried before a jury and found guilty of assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury. He was sentenced to not less than one nor more than two years in the Nevada State Prison.
Appellant seeks to reverse his conviction on the grounds that proper instructions as to lesser included offenses were not given by the trial court to the jury. He requested, but was refused, an instruction under NRS 202.290, aiming or discharging firearms; and NRS 200.470, simple assault.1
1. NRS 175.4552 allows a defendant in a criminal [193]*193trial to be found guilty of any offense which is necessarily included in that with which he is charged.
In State v. Carter, 79 Nev. 146, 379 P.2d 945 (1963), and Lisby v. State, 82 Nev. 183, 414 P.2d 592 (1966), the Court enunciated the test to be followed in determining lesser included offenses. “Where the offense charged cannot be committed without necessarily committing another offense, the latter is a ‘necessarily included’ offense.”
We must decide whether simple assault is a lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon,3 and whether a violation of NKS 202.2904 is a lesser included offense in the charge of assault with intent to kill or assault with intent to inflict bodily injury.
The defendant deliberately aimed a pistol and fired five shots into the driver’s seat of Cunningham’s automobile. The pattern formed by the five shots on the windshield of the automobile appeared to be such that had Cunningham remained in the driver’s seat he would have been killed or seriously injured. We held in Lisby v. [194]*194State, 82 Nev. 183, 414 P.2d 592 (1966), that where the elements of the greater offense include all of the elements of the lesser offense because by its very nature, the greater offense could not have been committed without the defendant having the intent and doing the acts which constitute the lesser offense, it was not incumbent upon the court to instruct on the lesser offense if the evidence clearly shows the commission of the more serious crime charged and no other interpretation of the defendant’s conduct was reasonably possible. In the instant case, there is nothing in the record to justify the finding of common assault only. Under the circumstances, a defendant who is charged with felonious assault is not entitled to an instruction on common assault. Lisby v. State, supra; People v. Morrison, 228 Cal.App.2d 707, 39 Cal.Rptr. 874 (1964); People v. Lain, 57 Cal.App.2d 123, 134 P.2d 284 (1943); State v. Watson, 364 S.W.2d 519 (Mo. 1963).
We hold, therefore, that while simple assault is a lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon, such an instruction is not mandatory and it was not error to refuse it in this case since the evidence clearly showed guilt above the lesser offense.
2. As to the second assignment of error relating to NRS 202.290, commonly referred to as the “aiming or discharging a firearm” statute, we are of the opinion that the legislature did not intend that aiming or discharging of firearms was to be a lesser included offense of assault charges. The former statute is, we think, focused on the negligent use of firearms in public places, i.e., the statute sets the elements out in the disjunctive, aim a pistol or discharge a firearm. An assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill or with intent to inflict bodily injury can be committed without violating any provision of NRS 202.290. Therefore, we hold that aiming or discharging a firearm is not a lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
414 P.2d 590, 82 Nev. 191, 1966 Nev. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holland-v-state-nev-1966.