Legal Opinion

Armstrong v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 1976No. 8916PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

After being convicted, by jury verdict, of the infamous crime against nature (NRS 201.190), and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, Charles Raymond Armstrong perfected this appeal.

Armstrong’s central contention is that he was denied due process of law because, on the day before the trial began, the trial judge permitted the prosecuting attorney to amend the information by adding thereto the name of a witness. The witness-had been discovered four days previously and defense counsel had been, at that time, so advised.

This court has previously, and consistently, ruled in analogous…

3Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. TeeterNevada Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Warden, Nevada State Prison v. LischkoNevada Supreme Court · 1974
  3. State v. MonahanNevada Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Hess v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Thomas v. Sheriff, Clark CountyNevada Supreme Court · 1973

4Cited by3 opinions

  1. Wesley v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State v. HancockNevada Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State v. HancockNevada Supreme Court · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API