Hendee v. State, 557 P.2d 275 (Nev. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Hendee v. State, 557 P.2d 275 (Nev. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Stringer v. State (nev, 1992-07-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stringer v. State
Nev. · 1992 · confidence medium
Nevertheless, we conclude that “the overwhelming evidence of guilt renders such error harmless.” Hendee v. State, 92 Nev. 669, 670 , 557 P.2d 275, 276 (1976) (citations omitted); see also Riley v. State, 107 Nev. 220 , 808 P.2d 560 (1991); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robins v. State
Nev. · 1990 · confidence medium
Pasgove v. State, 98 Nev. 434, 436 , 651 P.2d 100, 101-2 (1982); Hendee v. State, 92 Nev. 669, 670 , 557 P.2d 275, 276 (1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Farmer v. State
Nev. · 1979 · confidence medium
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967); Hendee v. State, 92 Nev. 669, 670 , 557 P.2d 275, 276 (1976). 4.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Deutscher v. State (2×)
Nev. · 1979 · confidence medium
Hendee v. State, 92 Nev. 669, 670 , 557 P.2d 275, 276 (1976) (per curiam); Drummond v. State, 86 Nev. 4, 8-9 , 462 P.2d 1012, 1015 (1970). 7.
discussed Cited "see" Ford v. State (2×)
Nev. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hendee v. State, 92 Nev. 669 , 557 P.2d 275 (1976).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Dickson v. State (4×)
Nev. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
Therefore, I would conclude that the error by the State was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967); see also Hendee v. State, 92 Nev. 669, 670 , 557 P.2d 275, 276 (1976); NRS 177.255.
KARL LAMONT HENDEE, ROBERT HENRY WOODS, Jr., and JAMES DAVID WEATHERLY, Appellants,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
8844.
Nevada Supreme Court.
Dec 21, 1976.
557 P.2d 275
William Whitehead III, Reno, for Appellant Hendee., Richard J. Legarza, Reno, for Appellant Woods., William N. Dunseath, Public Defender, and William B. Puzey, Deputy, Reno, for Appellant Weatherly., Larry R. Hicks, District Attorney, and Mills B. Lane, Chief Criminal Deputy, Reno, for Respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

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.