Williams v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Williams v. State

598 P.2d 1144, 95 Nev. 527, 1979 Nev. LEXIS 599

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 16, 1979

DocketNo. 10741

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 598 P.2d 1144 (Williams 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

Williams v. State, 598 P.2d 1144, 95 Nev. 527, 1979 Nev. LEXIS 599 (Neb. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Appellant Earle Schafer Williams stands convicted by a jury for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a felony pursuant to NRS 484.3795. Williams now maintains that the destruction of the decedent’s bicycle prevented the discovery of possible exculpatory evidence and thereby violated due process. Consequently, he argues that the conviction must be reversed.

1. The record on appeal does not contain a full transcript of the trial proceedings. All that exists is a partial transcript of the testimony of one Sergeant Cooper. Cooper, a Nevada State [528]*528Highway Patrolman, indicated that although the decedent’s bicycle had been impounded initially, it was later discarded.

Williams asserts that the bicycle was material to his case. However, an appellant seeking to have his conviction reversed for loss of evidence must show either (1) bad faith or connivance on the part of the government or, (2) that he was prejudiced by the loss of the evidence. United States v. Heiden, 508 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1974). The record fails to indicate any wrongdoing on the part of the State or prejudice to the appellant. Accordingly, we must affirm the conviction.

2. Other assigned errors are without merit.

Affirmed.

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

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Appellant Earle Schafer Williams stands convicted by a jury for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a felony pursuant to NRS 484.3795. Williams now maintains that the destruction of the decedent’s bicycle prevented the discovery of possible exculpatory evidence and thereby violated due process. Consequently, he argues that the conviction must be reversed.

1. The record on appeal does not contain a full transcript of the trial proceedings. All that exists is a partial transcript of the testimony of one Sergeant Cooper. Cooper, a Nevada State [528]*528Highway Patrolman, indicated that although the decedent’s bicycle had been impounded initially, it was later discarded.

Williams asserts that the bicycle was material to his case. However, an appellant seeking to have his conviction reversed for loss of evidence must show either (1) bad faith or connivance on the part of the government or, (2) that he was prejudiced by the loss of the evidence. United States v. Heiden, 508 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1974). The record fails to indicate any wrongdoing on the part of the State or prejudice to the appellant. Accordingly, we must affirm the conviction.

2. Other assigned errors are without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

598 P.2d 1144, 95 Nev. 527, 1979 Nev. LEXIS 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-nev-1979.

Opinion

2. Other assigned errors are without merit.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack