Nalls v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Nalls v. State

520 P.2d 611, 90 Nev. 124, 1974 Nev. LEXIS 332

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 28, 1974

DocketNo. 7256

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 520 P.2d 611 (Nalls 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

Nalls v. State, 520 P.2d 611, 90 Nev. 124, 1974 Nev. LEXIS 332 (Neb. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Convicted by a jury of committing battery with a deadly weapon (slashing his wife’s face with a knife), appellant contends the trial court erred by admitting into evidence two color photographs of the wound, which he claims were offered solely to inflame the passions of the jury. Appellant’s defense was that he lacked criminal intent, having inflicted the wound accidentally. Therefore, he argues, since he did not dispute the wound’s severity, the photographs were immaterial to the issues at trial.

Photographic evidence is generally liberally admitted, so long as it sheds light upon some material inquiry. Alsup v. State, 87 Nev. 500, 489 P.2d 679 (1971); Langley v. State, 84 Nev. 295, 439 P.2d 986 (1968). The fact that appellant did not dispute the seriousness of the wound did not negate the photographs’ materiality. At trial, the victim supported appellant’s defense that the wound was accidentally inflicted, [126]*126and minimized its severity. The photographs tended to show the angle and force of the knife thrust, which the jury were entitled to consider in determining whether to disbelieve appellant and the victim, and to believe other witnesses concerning the wound’s severity and the intentional manner in which it was inflicted.

Appellant’s remaining assignments of error are equally without merit.

Affirmed.

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

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Convicted by a jury of committing battery with a deadly weapon (slashing his wife’s face with a knife), appellant contends the trial court erred by admitting into evidence two color photographs of the wound, which he claims were offered solely to inflame the passions of the jury. Appellant’s defense was that he lacked criminal intent, having inflicted the wound accidentally. Therefore, he argues, since he did not dispute the wound’s severity, the photographs were immaterial to the issues at trial.

Photographic evidence is generally liberally admitted, so long as it sheds light upon some material inquiry. Alsup v. State, 87 Nev. 500, 489 P.2d 679 (1971); Langley v. State, 84 Nev. 295, 439 P.2d 986 (1968). The fact that appellant did not dispute the seriousness of the wound did not negate the photographs’ materiality. At trial, the victim supported appellant’s defense that the wound was accidentally inflicted, [126]*126and minimized its severity. The photographs tended to show the angle and force of the knife thrust, which the jury were entitled to consider in determining whether to disbelieve appellant and the victim, and to believe other witnesses concerning the wound’s severity and the intentional manner in which it was inflicted.

Appellant’s remaining assignments of error are equally without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 P.2d 611, 90 Nev. 124, 1974 Nev. LEXIS 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nalls-v-state-nev-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack