State v. Havas

Nevada Supreme Court

State v. Havas

540 P.2d 1060, 91 Nev. 611, 1975 Nev. LEXIS 727

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 30, 1975

Docket8309

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 540 P.2d 1060 (State v. Havas) 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

State v. Havas, 540 P.2d 1060, 91 Nev. 611, 1975 Nev. LEXIS 727 (Neb. 1975).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

By the Court,

Mowbray, J.:

Victor Rowland Havas, the respondent, was charged with rape. After a preliminary hearing, he was held to answer the charge in the district court. Thereafter, he petitioned that court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted. The State has appealed from the order granting the writ. The sole issue presented for our consideration is whether the record taken before the magistrate establishes “probable cause to believe that an offense [rape] has been committed and that the defendant has committed it.” NRS 171.206. State v. Fuchs, 78 Nev. 63, 368 P.2d 869 (1962); Ervin v. Leypoldt, 76 Nev. 297, [612]*612352 P.2d 718 (1960); Raggio v. Bryan, 76 Nev. 1, 348 P.2d 156 (1960); Ex parte Liotard, 47 Nev. 169, 217 P. 960 (1923); In re Kelly, 28 Nev. 491, 83 P. 223 (1905).

After reading the transcript of the proceedings before the magistrate who saw and heard the witness, we conclude, as did the magistrate, that the record shows there was sufficient legal evidence presented at the preliminary hearing establishing probable cause to believe that a public offense, rape, had been committed and that the defendant had committed it. We, therefore, reverse the order of the district judge granting habeas, and we order the defendant to answer in the district court.

Batjer and Zenoff, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION

By the Court,

Mowbray, J.:

Victor Rowland Havas, the respondent, was charged with rape. After a preliminary hearing, he was held to answer the charge in the district court. Thereafter, he petitioned that court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted. The State has appealed from the order granting the writ. The sole issue presented for our consideration is whether the record taken before the magistrate establishes “probable cause to believe that an offense [rape] has been committed and that the defendant has committed it.” NRS 171.206. State v. Fuchs, 78 Nev. 63, 368 P.2d 869 (1962); Ervin v. Leypoldt, 76 Nev. 297, [612]*612352 P.2d 718 (1960); Raggio v. Bryan, 76 Nev. 1, 348 P.2d 156 (1960); Ex parte Liotard, 47 Nev. 169, 217 P. 960 (1923); In re Kelly, 28 Nev. 491, 83 P. 223 (1905).

After reading the transcript of the proceedings before the magistrate who saw and heard the witness, we conclude, as did the magistrate, that the record shows there was sufficient legal evidence presented at the preliminary hearing establishing probable cause to believe that a public offense, rape, had been committed and that the defendant had committed it. We, therefore, reverse the order of the district judge granting habeas, and we order the defendant to answer in the district court.

Batjer and Zenoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 P.2d 1060, 91 Nev. 611, 1975 Nev. LEXIS 727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-havas-nev-1975.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack