McFarland (Logan) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

McFarland (Logan) v. State

DecidedJanuary 15, 2015

Docket65992

StatusUnpublished

This text of McFarland (Logan) v. State (McFarland (Logan) 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

McFarland (Logan) v. State, (Neb. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

and took her purse. Hill drove off with the victim while McFarland followed in another car. Believing she was about to be killed, the victim struggled with Hill until the car came to a stop. Both women fell out of the car. The victim noticed McFarland approaching and dove into the car. As she drove away, the victim was shot in the head. McFarland asserts that the robbery was complete as soon as the victim turned over her keys and purse and therefore any kidnapping which occurred thereafter was unrelated to the robbery. We disagree. See State v. Fouquette, 67 Nev. 505, 528, 221 P.2d 404, 416 (1950) ("Acts of taking victim of robbery from scene of crime in automobile for purpose of removing [her] to a place where [she] could less easily raise an alarm and summon aid, are committed in the perpetration of the robbery."). We conclude that the district court did not commit substantial error by determining that sufficient evidence was presented to establish probable cause to support the charge. Second, McFarland contends that the district court erred by rejecting his proposed jury instruction, which stated that he could not be convicted of committing an offense involving a stolen vehicle unless the jury found that the person who took the vehicle intended to permanently deprive the owner thereof. "This court reviews a district court's decision to issue or not to issue a particular jury instruction for an abuse of discretion." Ouanbengboune v. State, 125 Nev. 763, 774, 220 P.3d 1122, 1129 (2009). Because NRS 205.273 (offense involving a stolen vehicle) does not require the State to prove that the vehicle was taken with the intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting McFarland's instruction. See Carter v. State, 121 Nev. 759, 765, 121 P.3d 592, 596

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A mse. (2005) (a defendant is not entitled to inaccurate instructions). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Parraguirre

iniut , J. Douglas Cherry

cc: Hon. Nancy L. Porter, District Judge Gary D. Woodbury Attorney General/Carson City Elko County District Attorney Elko County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 10) 1947A me

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

and took her purse. Hill drove off with the victim while McFarland followed in another car. Believing she was about to be killed, the victim struggled with Hill until the car came to a stop. Both women fell out of the car. The victim noticed McFarland approaching and dove into the car. As she drove away, the victim was shot in the head. McFarland asserts that the robbery was complete as soon as the victim turned over her keys and purse and therefore any kidnapping which occurred thereafter was unrelated to the robbery. We disagree. See State v. Fouquette, 67 Nev. 505, 528, 221 P.2d 404, 416 (1950) ("Acts of taking victim of robbery from scene of crime in automobile for purpose of removing [her] to a place where [she] could less easily raise an alarm and summon aid, are committed in the perpetration of the robbery."). We conclude that the district court did not commit substantial error by determining that sufficient evidence was presented to establish probable cause to support the charge. Second, McFarland contends that the district court erred by rejecting his proposed jury instruction, which stated that he could not be convicted of committing an offense involving a stolen vehicle unless the jury found that the person who took the vehicle intended to permanently deprive the owner thereof. "This court reviews a district court's decision to issue or not to issue a particular jury instruction for an abuse of discretion." Ouanbengboune v. State, 125 Nev. 763, 774, 220 P.3d 1122, 1129 (2009). Because NRS 205.273 (offense involving a stolen vehicle) does not require the State to prove that the vehicle was taken with the intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting McFarland's instruction. See Carter v. State, 121 Nev. 759, 765, 121 P.3d 592, 596