Case ID: nev_91/html/0519-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HAROLD GENE LAWSON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
    No. 8066
    August 26, 1975
    539 P.2d 116
    
      Morgan D. Harris, Public Defender, and Robert L. Stott, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.
    
      Robert List, Attorney General; George A. Holt, District Attorney, and Dan M. Seaton, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.
   OPINION

Per Curiam:

Appellant’s sole contention in this appeal suggests we should reverse a judgment of conviction and sentence because the trial judge refused to give a requested jury instruction which did not accurately state the applicable law.

He has cited no relevant authority in support of the contention; and, in fact the law is otherwise. See Harris v. State, 83 Nev. 404, 407, 432 P.2d 929, 931 (1967), where we said: “. . . [Requested instructions must properly state the law. The appellant can claim no right to have requested instructions given when they do not correctly state the law. Without such right a refusal is not error.” See also, State v. Sheeley, 63 Nev. 88, 162 P.2d 96 (1945).

Affirmed.