NAT ADLER, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, RESPONDENT.
No. 9744
In the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada
May 10, 1979
Rehearing denied June 28, 1979
594 P.2d 725
Annette R. Quintana,* Las Vegas, for Appellant.
Richard Bryan, Attorney General, Carson City; Robert J. Miller, District Attorney, and Douglas Clark, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.
By the Court, MANOUKIAN, J.:
Appellant, while serving as public administrator of Clark County, was indicted for a felonious attempt to obtain money by false pretenses.
Testifying in his own behalf, Adler defended essentially on the ground that he lacked any culpable intent. He stated that the rates and figures used in his petition for compensation were supplied by his employees. He presented the petition to his attorney who advised him that the charges were rather high but that the filed petition could always be amended if errors were subsequently discovered.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty and Adler was sentenced to three years in the Nevada State Prison, suspended, and placed on probation for an indeterminate period not to exceed five years. From the judgment of conviction and sentence Adler appeals,3 contending: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict; (2) it was reversible error to refuse appellant‘s proffered jury instructions; (3) the conviction for attempting to obtain money under false pretenses is violative of due process; and (4) the grand jury selection process was fatally defective. We turn now to consider these questions.
- Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Appellant questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The test for sufficiency of the evidence on appeal “is not whether this court is convinced of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether this court can conclude the trier of facts could, acting reasonably, be convinced to the degree of certitude by the evidence which it had a right to believe and accept as true.” Crowe v. State, 84 Nev. 358, 366-367, 441 P.2d 90, 95 (1968). Edwards v. State, 90 Nev. 255, 524 P.2d 328 (1974). Here, there was evidence that appellant, while public administrator of Clark County, filed a petition for compensation claiming transfer and storage charges for an 81 day period amounting to $11,340.00. There
Adler personally sealed off the apartment the day after the decedent‘s death. His most casual observation should have revealed that the unit did not contain 1400 square feet. The apartment manager told him that the unit was furnished and testified that he pointed out his furniture to Adler‘s employees.
Paul Meade, a trust officer of Valley Bank of Nevada, appointed to succeed as administrator of the estate, testified that he visited appellant‘s warehouse to inventory the decedent‘s property. Adler pointed out the property, including several items of furniture, as belonging to the estate. Meade noted that there were large discrepancies between his inventory and that taken by the prior special administrator. When Meade later returned with the decedent‘s son to inspect the items, Adler denied them entry, purportedly on advice of counsel.
Adler presented the testimony of his secretary who prepared a draft of the petition for compensation. She testified that although she thought the ten cent per square foot per day rate was “rather high” at the time, Adler nevertheless instructed her to prepare the petition on that basis. According to her, she determined the rate after talking with other transfer and storage companies in Las Vegas. However, cross-examination revealed that only one company, Las Vegas Trasfer and Storage, gave her an estimate. A representative of that company testified that his company charged 4.5 cents per cubic foot per month in 1975.
Adler‘s attorney testified that the requested compensation sounded like a lot of money to him, but he filed the petition
“It is the function of the jury and not the reviewing court to weigh the evidence.” McGuire v. State, 86 Nev. 262, 267, 468 P.2d 12, 15 (1970). Here, there was ample evidence upon which the jury could have concluded that Adler knew or should have known the customary rates as well as the actual square or cubic footage required for storage of the decedent‘s property were remarkably less than that alleged in his petition for compensation. Additionally, we find it significant that appellant refused to admit the decedent‘s son to inspect the stored property, and both his attorney and secretary were doubtful of the quantitative validity of the claim.
The jury has the prerogative to make logical inferences which flow from the evidence. Moreover, “where there is substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict of the jury, it will not be overturned by an appellate court.” Tellis v. State, 85 Nev. 679, 679-680, 462 P.2d 526, 527 (1969). Although appellant attempted to explain his actions and denied any culpable intent, the jury was free to accord to his testimony the weight to which it was entitled. There was substantial evidence, albeit circumstantial, of appellant‘s guilt. Accordingly, we affirm on the issue of sufficiency of the evidence.
- The Proffered Instructions.
Adler next complains of the trial judge‘s failure to give two proffered jury instructions. First, he contends the court erred in refusing to add a third paragraph to Instruction No. 4 on intent and good faith.4 The additional paragraph was refused on the
We turn to consider Adler‘s requested instruction relating to reliance on advice of counsel.6 In effect, Adler‘s contention is that he should have been acquitted of willful wrongdoing because he acted on the basis of advice from his attorney. He insists the trial court‘s refusal to give the proffered instruction was reversible error. Of course, “a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to have the jury instructed on his theory of the case
However, we note that contrary to appellant‘s suggestion, reliance on advice of counsel “is not regarded as a separate and distinct defense, but rather as a circumstance indicating good faith which the trier of fact is entitled to consider on the issue of fraudulent intent.” Bisno v. United States, 299 F.2d 711, 719 (9th Cir. 1961); United States v. Powell, 513 F.2d 1249 (8th Cir. 1975); cf. Barger v. State, supra. In Barger we held that the trial court‘s refusal to instruct on the defense of entrapment was prejudicial error. Here, in contrast to Barger, Adler‘s claimed reliance on advice of counsel is not a complete defense.
Moreover, appellant did not seek legal advice respecting the lawfulness of his future conduct. Rather, he merely presented the facts to his attorney who commented that the requested compensation sounded excessive. His attorney advised that if the figures were later determined erroneous, the petition could be amended. Thereafter, the petition was filed and Adler confirmed its accuracy. There was no proof that Adler relied upon his attorney‘s advice with respect to the petition.
No one can wilfully and knowingly violate the law and be insulated from the consequences by claiming that he followed the advice of counsel. See Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425 (1908). Accordingly, we uphold the trial judge‘s refusal to give the instruction.
- Due Process.
Appellant‘s third argument is summarized as follows:
The decision in Adler v. Sheriff [92 Nev. 436, 552 P.2d 334 (1976)] represented a judicial enlargement of the scope of the statute on obtaining money or property by false pretenses [
NRS 205.380 ], and that the application of this enlarged construction to the defendant constitutes a violation of due process as being tantamount to the imposition of a law, ex post facto [sic].
Essentially, Adler asserts that the application of
We reject Adler‘s contention that the filing of a false claim
in a judicial proceeding cannot constitute a basis for a prosecution for an attempt to obtain money under false pretenses. [Citations omitted.] Adler v. Sheriff, supra, at 440, 552 P.2d at 336.
Adler v. Sheriff, supra, established the law of the case, Theriault v. State, 92 Nev. 185, 547 P.2d 668 (1976); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 535 P.2d 797 (1975), and we observe no reason for reconsideration of the issue.
- The Grand Jury.
Appellant‘s objection to our statutory grand jury selection procedure is twofold: First, he argues that a grand jury composed only of those indicating a “willingness to serve” (
The Volunteer Grand Jury.
Appellant maintains a grand jury selected exclusively from those indicating a willingness to serve unconstitutionally limits the jury to a special group. In People v. Goodspeed, 99 Cal. Rptr. 696 (Cal.App. 1972), a similar claim was made. The court there held that “the exclusion from a proposed grand jury list of persons unwilling to serve . . . does not violate constitutional requirements.” Id. While it is settled that a grand jury must be drawn from a cross-section of the community, and there must be no systematic and purposeful exclusion of an identifiable class of persons, People v. Goodspeed, supra; Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625 (1972); Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545 (1967), it is clear that the exclusion of persons not willing to serve operates without regard to race, sex, status or ethnic background. Appellant has failed to show purposeful or systematic discrimination against any group or class (Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217 (1945)); and, he has failed to demonstrate that the persons unwilling to serve
The Racial Indicator. Appellant‘s objection to the use of racial indicators on scope sheets is wholly without merit. Duren v. Missouri, supra; Taylor v. Louisiana, supra. Here, it was uncontroverted that the entire grand jury selection process was racially neutral. Cf. Alexander v. Louisiana, supra; Whitus v. Georgia, supra; Avery v. Georgia, 345 U.S. 559 (1953), where names of prospective jurors were drawn from sources which designated race.
The conviction is affirmed.
MOWBRAY, C. J., and THOMPSON and BATJER, JJ., concur.
GUNDERSON, J., dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
Reduced to its essence, the testimony shows without dispute that, when appellant‘s petition for compensation was filed, his attorney advised him to proceed—telling him that the figures could than be checked and, if need be, corrected later. Thus, in my view, although the record may show poor office procedures, it does not show criminal intent.
Moreover, assuming a factual question remained after the attorney‘s advice to appellant was unequivocally established, then I think the jury should have been specifically instructed to consider that appellant acted in accordance with a licensed attorney‘s advice, when considering the issue of his intent.
Notes
The proffered third paragraph reads:The question of intent is a matter for you, as Jurors, to determine. Intent is a state of mind and it is not possible to look into a man‘s mind to see what went on. The only way you have of arriving at the intent of the defendant in this case is for you to consider all the facts and circumstances in evidence to determine whether, as to the statements charged to have been falsely made by the defendant, the defendant knew and specifically intended the statements to be false when he made them.
Thus, evidence of the presence or absence of facts tending to show that the defendant did or did not act in good faith, or that he did or did not conceal or attempt to conceal the true facts and circumstances, may be considered by you as bearing on the question of intent.
Stated another way, evidence which tends to establish that the defendant‘s representations regarding the storage and storage fees for the property of the decedent‘s estate, were openly and publicly conducted and revealed, and evidence tending to establish that the defendant acted in good faith may be sufficient to raise in your minds a reasonable doubt as to the presence or absence of a specific intent on the part of the defendant to commit the crime of attempting to obtain property by false pretenses. If so, it is your duty to acquit the defendant.
From Devitt and Blackman, Federal Jury Practice & Instructions, § 16.15. The judge rejected this proposed instruction since “the evidence admitted in this case will not justify the giving of this broad instruction. Issue covered in other instructions given.”The defendant claims that he is not guilty of willful wrongdoing because he acted on the basis of advice from his attorney.
If the defendant before taking any action sought the advice of an attorney whom he considered competent, in good faith and for the purpose of securing advice on the lawfulness of his possible future conduct, and made a full and accurate report to his attorney of all material facts of which he has the means of knowledge, and acted strictly in accordance with the advice of his attorney given following his full report, then the defendant would not be willfully doing wrong in doing (omitting) something the law forbids (requires), as that term is used in these instructions.
Whether the defendant acted in good faith for the purpose of seeking guidance as to questions about which he was in doubt, and whether he made a full and complete report to his attorney, and whether he acted strictly in accordance with the advice received, are questions for you to determine. (Emphasis added.)