Lawson v. State

539 P.2d 116, 91 Nev. 519, 1975 Nev. LEXIS 697
Nevada Supreme Court·Decided August 26, 1975·No. No. 8066·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Appellant’s sole contention in this appeal suggests we should reverse a judgment of conviction and sentence because the trial judge refused to give a requested jury instruction which did not accurately state the applicable law.

[520] He has cited no relevant authority in support of the contention; and, in fact the law is otherwise. See Harris v. State, 83 Nev. 404, 407, 432 P.2d 929, 931 (1967), where we said: “. . . [Requested instructions must properly state the law. The appellant can claim no right to have requested instructions given when they do not correctly state the law. Without such right a refusal is not error.” See also, State v. Sheeley, 63 Nev. 88, 162 P.2d 96 (1945).

Affirmed.

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

Lawson v. State, 539 P.2d 116, 91 Nev. 519, 1975 Nev. LEXIS 697 (Neb. 1975).

539 P.2d 116 (Lawson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lloyd v. State
576 P.2d 740 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1978)