From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ursino, Heiar v. State

Supreme Court of Nevada
Jun 7, 1976
550 P.2d 411 (Nev. 1976)

Opinion

No. 8545

June 7, 1976

Appeals from the Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; William N. Forman, J.

Phillip Bartlett, Deputy Public Defender, Washoe County, for Appellants.

Larry R. Hicks, District Attorney, and Kathleen M. Wall, Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.


OPINION


The appellants request this court to set aside their convictions for drug offenses contending that the trial court erred in refusing to give certain instructions to the jury and in receiving certain rebuttal testimony. Neither contention has merit.

The refused instructions, one concerning entrapment, and the other regarding a lesser included offense, were fully explained by other instructions which the court gave to the jury. Ricci v. State, 91 Nev. 373, 536 P.2d 79 (1975). The rebuttal testimony was given by a police officer concerning a conversation with Appellant Heiar prior to administering a polygraph examination. The testimony was properly admitted. Gardner v. State, 91 Nev. 443, 537 P.2d 469 (1975). The conversation which the officer related was not the result of the polygraph test. Cf. Warden v. Lischko, 90 Nev. 221, 523 P.2d 6 (1974).

The convictions are affirmed.


Summaries of

Ursino, Heiar v. State

Supreme Court of Nevada
Jun 7, 1976
550 P.2d 411 (Nev. 1976)
Case details for

Ursino, Heiar v. State

Case Details

Full title:RENE MARY URSINO AND STEVEN DONALD HEIAR, APPELLANTS, v. THE STATE OF…

Court:Supreme Court of Nevada

Date published: Jun 7, 1976

Citations

550 P.2d 411 (Nev. 1976)
550 P.2d 411