Case Name: RENE MARY URSINO and STEVEN DONALD HEIAR, Appellants, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1976-06-07
Citations: 92 Nev. 352
Docket Number: No. 8545
Parties: RENE MARY URSINO and STEVEN DONALD HEIAR, Appellants, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 352–353

Head Matter:
RENE MARY URSINO and STEVEN DONALD HEIAR, Appellants, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
No. 8545
June 7, 1976
550 P.2d 411
Phillip Bartlett, Deputy Public Defender, Washoe County, for Appellants.
Larry R. Hicks, District Attorney, and Kathleen M. Wall, Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION
Per Curiam:
The appellants request this court to set aside their convictions for drug offenses contending that the trial court erred in refusing to give certain instructions to the jury and in receiving certain rebuttal testimony. Neither contention has merit.
The refused instructions, one concerning entrapment, and the other regarding a lesser included offense, were fully explained by other instructions which the court gave to the jury. Ricci v. State, 91 Nev. 373, 536 P.2d 79 (1975). The rebuttal testimony was given by a police officer concerning a conversation with Appellant Heiar prior to administering a polygraph examination. The testimony was properly admitted. Gardner v. State, 91 Nev. 443, 537 P.2d 469 (1975). The conversation which the officer related was not the result of the polygraph test. Cf. Warden v. Lischko, 90 Nev. 221, 523 P.2d 6 (1974).
The convictions are affirmed.