State v. Maynard
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the- Sixth Judicial District, Eureka County. The facts are- stated in the opinion. The court erred in assuming questions of fact as to the acts and testimony of defendant. (Hayne on N. T. 341, sec. 121, subd. 4.) The instructions of the court as to the weight to be given to the testimony of defendant may be open to criticism, but there is no assumption of disputed facts.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the- Sixth Judicial District, Eureka County. The facts are- stated in the opinion. The court erred in assuming questions of fact as to the acts and testimony of defendant. (Hayne on N. T. 341, sec. 121, subd. 4.) The instructions of the court as to the weight to be given to the testimony of defendant may be open to criticism, but there is no assumption of disputed facts. The taking was admitted, and the language objected to can scarcely be deemed error. The court has the right to point. out the distinction between different kinds of testimony. It is also…
1ConcurrenceBy Hawley, J.
Actions often speak plainer than words, and in many eases, 'undoubtedly, furnish “ a safer foundation from which to draw .a,conclusion ” as to the intentions of men than declarations .thereafter made in their own favor. (State v. McGinnis, 6 Nev. 112.) But this rule is neither universal nor infallible. It therefore follows that in all criminal cases where the defendant testifies in his own behalf, it is the duty of the jury to determine the intent of the defendant from all the facts and circumstances •of the case. His testimony at the trial must be considered in ■connection with his acts,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. McGinnisNevada Supreme Court · 1870