ARMSTRONG v. STATE, 92 Nev. 675 (1976)

557 P.2d 272

CHARLES RAYMOND ARMSTRONG, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, RESPONDENT.

No. 8916Supreme Court of Nevada.
December 21, 1976 Rehearing denied January 11, 1977

Appeal from the First Judicial District Court, Carson City; Frank B. Gregory, J.

Page 676

William N. Dunseath, Public Defender, and David G. Parraguirre, Deputy Public Defender, Washoe County, for Appellant.

Robert List, Attorney General, Carson City; Michael Fondi, District Attorney, and Terry A. Friedman, Deputy District Attorney, Carson City, for Respondent.

OPINION
Per Curiam:

After being convicted, by jury verdict, of the infamous crime against nature (NRS 201.190), and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, Charles Raymond Armstrong perfected this appeal.

Armstrong’s central contention is that he was denied due process of law because, on the day before the trial began, the trial judge permitted the prosecuting attorney to amend the information by adding thereto the name of a witness. The witness had been discovered four days previously and defense counsel had been, at that time, so advised.

This court has previously, and consistently, ruled in analogous situations that “[t]he weight of authority is to the effect that under statutes such as ours the indorsement of names of witnesses upon an information is largely a matter of discretion with the court; and, in the absence of a showing of abuse, or that some substantial injury has resulted to the accused, an order permitting such indorsement, even after the trial has commenced, does not constitute of itself reversible error.” State v. Monahan, 50 Nev. 27, 35, 249 P. 566, 569 (1926). Accord: Hess v. State, 73 Nev. 175, 313 P.2d 432 (1957); State v. Teeter, 65 Nev. 584, 200 P.2d 657 (1948). Here, the record

Page 677

supports the district judge’s determination that the amendment was not prejudicial. See NRS 173.095.

Armstrong’s other contentions are also without merit. See Thomas v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 17, 504 P.2d 1313 (1973); Warden v. Lischko, 90 Nev. 221, 523 P.2d 6 (1974).

Affirmed.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 557 P.2d 272

Recent Posts

KAPLAN v. DUTRA, 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 80 (2016)

No. 69065. 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 80 DAVID JOHN KAPLAN, Appellant, v. CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE,…

9 years ago

MAYO v. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 79 (2016)

No. 69566. 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 79 ANTHONY MAYO, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT…

9 years ago

PACIFIC WESTERN BANK v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 78 (2016)

No. 69048. 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 78 PACIFIC WESTERN BANK, A CALIFORNIA BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner,…

9 years ago

BOWMAN v. STATE, 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 74 (2016)

No. 67656. 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 74 FREDRICK LEWIS BOWMAN, A/K/A FREDERICK LEWIS BOWMAN, Appellant,…

9 years ago

WILLIAMS v. STATE, 118 Nev. 1159 (2002)

106 P.3d 1269 DARRYL WILLIAMS v. STATE. No. 39177.Supreme Court of Nevada. May 09, 2002.…

9 years ago

LARA v. DIST. CT., 122 Nev. 1697 (2006)

Lara v. District Court. No. 46284.Supreme Court of Nevada. March 24, 2006. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This…

9 years ago