From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Winston v. Sheriff

Supreme Court of Nevada
Nov 10, 1976
92 Nev. 616 (Nev. 1976)

Opinion

No. 9170

November 10, 1976

Appeal from the Eighth Judicial District Court; Howard W. Babcock, J.

Gary L. Redmon, Las Vegas, for Appellant.

George E. Holt, District Attorney, and Rimantas A. Rukstele, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.


OPINION


At the conclusion of a preliminary examination, Johnny F. Winston was bound over for trial on charges of robbery and battery with intent to commit robbery, felonies under NRS 200.380 and 200.400. Winston then filed a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus contending the evidence adduced by the prosecuting attorney was insufficient to establish probable cause that he committed the charged offenses. The district court denied habeas and Winston, reurging the same contention, has appealed.

The record establishes that this proceeding arose out of an alleged violent robbery in the Las Vegas Frontier Hotel Casino men's rest room. The victim testified he was brutally battered and robbed in one of the toilet stalls by Winston's codefendant. Another witness testified that, upon entering the room, he heard the commotion. There he saw Winston, who approached him and said: "They are just taking a crap."

Winston argues that mere presence, coupled with his statement, is insufficient to establish probable cause of his complicity in the crimes. We disagree.

Although mere presence cannot support an inference that one is a party to an offense, People v. Francis, 450 P.2d 591 (Cal. 1969), presence together with other circumstances may do so. State v. Cummings, 423 P.2d 438 (Haw. 1967). Here there is more than mere presence. There was great commotion inside the toilet stall. The sound of one person hitting another was audible. The victim was shouting for help and sobbing loudly. In this context, Winston's statement gives rise to a reasonable inference that he was attempting to dissuade a would-be rescuer from interfering, and that his presence was for that purpose. See also, Robertson v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 681, 462 P.2d 528 (1969).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Winston v. Sheriff

Supreme Court of Nevada
Nov 10, 1976
92 Nev. 616 (Nev. 1976)
Case details for

Winston v. Sheriff

Case Details

Full title:JOHNNY F. WINSTON, APPELLANT, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Nevada

Date published: Nov 10, 1976

Citations

92 Nev. 616 (Nev. 1976)
555 P.2d 1234

Citing Cases

Rodriguez v. State

It is well established that mere presence at the scene of a crime cannot support an inference that one is…

Walker v. State

These circumstances, in addition to mere presence at the scene, clearly support an inference that appellant…