Court Opinion

ID: 9553331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:28:02.50336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:30:48.381068
License: Public Domain

*195Wines, D. J.,
concurring:
I concur in the affirmance of the Judgment and Sentence.
I would also agree that simple assault is a lesser included offense. But I do not agree that the offered instruction was properly refused because the “evidence clearly shows the commission of the more serious crime charged and no other interpretation of the defendant’s conduct was reasonably possible.”
The offered instruction was properly refused because there is no evidence to support the giving of such an instruction. The Appellant did not testify but the complaining witness testified that the Appellant came into view from a reclining position in the car and “his eyes looked like he had been asleep or passed out.” The officer who arrested the Appellant approximately 10 minutes after the incident stated the Appellant appeared to be “intoxicated” and in a “dazed condition” and “not normal.” These testimonies the Appellant argues entitle him to the offered, instruction. But this evidence bears upon the Appellant’s capacity to form the required specific intent and the jury was properly instructed on that issue. A trial judge should refuse an instruction when the evidence does not raise an issue but he should not, in instructing the jury, determine the probative value of the evidence submitted. The trial judge is not a trier of the facts.
I would agree that the crime defined in NRS 202.290 is not a lesser included offense when the charge is assault with intent to kill or assault with intent to inflict bodily injury.
Judge Taylor Wines was designated to sit in the place of Judge Milton B. Badt, deceased.