Allan v. State
Nevada Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
Appellant stands convicted of an infamous crime against nature, committed through oral copulation with a 14-year-old boy. See: NRS 201.190. Appellant here contends the trial court erred: (1) in allowing him to conduct his own defense; (2) in holding he could be convicted on the testimony of the boy alone, without corroboration; (3) in holding the “infamous crime” statute constitutional; and (4) in sentencing appellant under NRS 201.190(1) (a) rather than NRS 201.190(1)(b). We reject all contentions raised.
1. Appellant wished to conduct his own defense. In fact, he refused to go forward…
3Cases cited6 opinions
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- State v. ElliottNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1975
- Jones v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1969
- Basurto v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1970
- Hatten v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1967
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by1 opinion
- Dinkens v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1976