Armstrong v. State
Nevada Supreme Court
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
- State v. TeeterNevada Supreme Court · 1948
- Warden, Nevada State Prison v. LischkoNevada Supreme Court · 1974
- State v. MonahanNevada Supreme Court · 1926
- Hess v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1957
- Thomas v. Sheriff, Clark CountyNevada Supreme Court · 1973
4Cited by3 opinions
- Wesley v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1996
- State v. HancockNevada Supreme Court · 1998
- State v. HancockNevada Supreme Court · 1998