Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

JOE LISCHKO, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF NEVADA, RESPONDENT.

OPINION

Per Curiam:

The appellant, who was charged by indictment, stands convicted of first degree kidnapping. He asks us to set aside his conviction for three reasons. First, because the trial court refused his request to order the district attorney to supply him with a list of witnesses to be called during presentation of the State's case in chief. When an accused is charged by indictment, a list of witnesses need not be supplied. Smithart v. State, 86 Nev. 925, 478 P.2d 576 (1970); Mathis v. State, 82 Nev. 402, 419 P.2d 775 (1966). Second, because evidence suggesting the perpetration of another offense by appellant was received. As to this, no objection was interposed by trial counsel and the error, if any, was waived. Wilson v. State, 86 Nev. 320, 468 P.2d 346 (1970); Smithart v. State, supra. Third, because the trial court denied his motion, made during trial, to produce statements, if any, submitted to the prosecution by one Robert Sheridan. Sheridan was not called as a witness. Cf. Mears v. State, 83 Nev. 3, 422 P.2d 230 (1967); Walker v. State, 78 Nev. 463, 376 P.2d 137 (1962); State v. Bachman, 41 Nev. 197, 168 P. 733 (1917). Moreover, the record does not show that Sheridan gave statements or evidence, or that he even possessed relevant information.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

LISCHKO v. STATE
(Oct 6, 1971)