Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

92 Nev. 103

546 P.2d 231

Klepar v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided February 17, 1976

Nevada Supreme Court · decided 1976-02-17

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Where the evidence would not support a finding of guilty of the lesser offense or degree, e.g., where the defendant denies any complicity in the crime charged and thus lays no foundation for any intermediate verdict . . ., the lesser offense is either not proved or shown not to exist. The [requested] instruction is not only unnecessary but is erroneous because it is not pertinent.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Ruland v. State

Applies NV 205 § 205.060

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Lisby v. State · Silks v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1976-02-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 2006

9 state decisions

601976198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 OPINION

Per Curiam:

¶2 Ronald Albert Klepar, convicted by jury verdict of burglarizing a hotel room at. Lake Tahoe (NRS 205.060), was sentenced to a five (5) year term in the Nevada State Prison.

¶3*104 In an attempt to obtain release from incarceration Klepar has appealed contending an incriminating statement he made to a private hotel security officer was inadmissible because he was not given the warning required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The identical issue was recently considered and rejected by this court in Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 545 P.2d 1159 (1976).

¶4 Klepar also contends the trial judge erred in refusing to give a requested instruction on trespass, which he suggests is a lesser included offense of burglary. He argues that since he testified that he had been “invited” into the hotel room that he is entitled to the instruction.

¶5 Even if we assume trespass to be a lesser included offense, Klepar’s testimony does not raise the question and this record is totally barren of any evidence to support such a finding. “. . . [W]here the defendant denies any complicity in the crime charged and thus lays no foundation for any intermediate verdict ... the lessor offense is either not proved or shown not to exist. The [requested] instruction is not only unnecessary but is erroneous because it is not pertinent.” Lisby v. State, 82 Nev. 183, 187, 414 P.2d 592, 595 (1966).

¶6 Affirmed.

/92/nev/103 · .json · Public domain