From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burkett v. State

Supreme Court of Nevada
Oct 18, 1966
418 P.2d 991 (Nev. 1966)

Opinion

No. 5054

October 18, 1966

Appeal from the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Clarence Sundean, Judge.

Babcock Sutton, of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

Harvey Dickerson, Attorney General, of Carson City, and Edward G. Marshall, District Attorney, Clark County, and R. Ian Ross, Deputy District Attorney, of Las Vegas, for Respondent.


OPINION


Appellant Burkett was charged with burglary in the second degree and found guilty by jury. His appeal is based on an alleged failure of proof, in that the state failed to show that he had entered the premises burglarized. Our examination of the record shows substantial circumstantial evidence of an entry by the appellant. It was, therefore, permissible for the jury to find him guilty. No useful purpose is served by reciting the circumstantial evidence. The court has considered a subordinate assignment of error and finds it to be without merit.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Burkett v. State

Supreme Court of Nevada
Oct 18, 1966
418 P.2d 991 (Nev. 1966)
Case details for

Burkett v. State

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM RICHARD BURKETT, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Nevada

Date published: Oct 18, 1966

Citations

418 P.2d 991 (Nev. 1966)
418 P.2d 991

Citing Cases

State v. Liberty

Eyewitnesses who actually saw the defendant break and enter the premises are not required to sustain a…

Edwards v. State

NRS 205.060(1). Of course, circumstantial evidence may possess such strength as to establish entry beyond a…