Court Opinion

ID: 9606212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:48:07.723725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:32.942990
License: Public Domain

Gunderson, J.,
concurring:
I concur in the result, but desire to add a comment.
When this case first came before us, in regard to a pretrial habeas application, there was serious doubt whether the State had presented any evidence at all, justifying a prosecution for forcible rape. See State v. Havas, 91 Nev. 611, 540 P.2d 1060 (1975). Indeed, on this issue, members of the court were divided in opinion, although our established practice has been extremely liberal in upholding determinations of probable cause, whether made by magistrates or by grand juries. See, for example Franklin v. State, 89 Nev. 382, 513 P.2d 1252 (1973).
It should be noted, therefore, that the fabtual determination now under review, i.e. the district court’s finding that the loss of the underpants was prejudicial, came in a case in which the alleged victim’s testimony was itself quite ambiguous on the issue of force, and subject to serious challenge concerning the manner the crime assertedly occurred.
In this context, the district court’s finding cannot be held erroneous as a matter of law.