Document Type
Case Summary
Publication Date
1-1-2005
Case Synopsis
Ramon Garcia appealed his convictions for: (1) burglary while in possession of a firearm, (2) robbery with the use of a deadly weapon, (3) first-degree kidnapping, 4. conspiracy to commit burglary, (5) another burglary while in the possession of a firearm, 6. conspiracy to commit robbery, (7) attempted robbery with the use of a deadly weapon, and 8. false imprisonment. Garcia argued that: (1) the jury instruction on false imprisonment was improper, (2). the state presented insufficient evidence to support a verdict on kidnapping and false imprisonment, (3) the district court erroneously failed to hold a hearing on his motion to dismiss counsel, (4) the statutory reasonable doubt instruction is unconstitutional, (5) the district court erroneously failed to permit crossexamination of non-adverse witnesses, and (6) the convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery and conspiracy to commit burglary violate the double jeopardy clause.
Recommended Citation
Carley, Justin L., "Summary of Garcia v. State " (2005). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 615.
https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/nvscs/615