Hendee v. State
KARL LAMONT HENDEE, ROBERT HENRY WOODS, Jr., and JAMES DAVID WEATHERLY, Appellants, v. STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
Opinion
OPINION Per Curiam:
On the evening of August 9, 1975, Mr. and Mrs. Stone returned to their Reno apartment with their guests, Mr. and Mrs. Pogue. Upon entering, the Pogues and Mrs. Stone encountered appellants, armed with a sawed-off M-l carbine and a pistol. Mr. Stone, who had not yet entered, observed appellants from outside and ran to a neighboring apartment to summon *670 police. Mrs. Stone and the Pogues were ordered to lie on the floor while appellants proceeded to rob them. Shortly thereafter, the police arrived and arrested appellants. Personalty belonging to the victims was found on the persons of the appellants, as were the weapons described above.
At trial, the district court allowed a Reno police officer to testify that the pistol used in perpetration of the crimes was reported stolen in January, 1974. Appellants contend we are compelled to reverse because the district court erred in admitting this irrelevant, prejudicial, and hearsay testimony. We do not agree. Even if we assume it was error for the district court to allow the disputed testimony, we believe the overwhelming evidence of guilt renders such error harmless. NRS 177.255; 178.598; cf. Johnson v. State, 92 Nev. 405 , 551 P.2d 241 (1976); Jacobs v. State, 91 Nev. 155 , 532 P.2d 1034 (1975); Grimaldi v. State, 90 Nev. 83 , 518 P.2d 615 (1974).
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(evidence that pistol used in commission of crime was stolen, while error, considered harmless because evidence of guilt overwhelming)
Cited by 13 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.