Sherman v. State

Feb 22, 1973
6858
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Per Curiam

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Convicted of violating the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, appellant contends that statute was unconstitutional insofar as it ‍​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‍classified marijuana a narcotic drug and punished its sale, *78 possession or use accordingly. See: NRS 453.020(2), since supplanted by the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, NRS 453.011 et seq. We rejected this contention in Egan v. Sheriff, 88 Nev. 611, 503 P.2d 16 (1972).

Appellant ‍​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‍further contends the trial court erred in excluding testimony to establish his good reputation, which he urges was relevant to a defense of entrapment. If error, the exclusion of such testimony does not justify reversal, ‍​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‍because in this case it could not have prejudiced substantial rights. NRS 47.040; NRS 178.598. Entrapment is an affirmative defense, Wyatt v. State, 77 Nev. 490, 367 P.2d 104 (1961), of which the record contains no evidence, and which the ‍​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‍jury would not have been justified in finding merely from the proffered testimony that defendant enjoyed a good reputation.

We decline to consider other assginments of error, raised for the first time on appeal. Bonnenfant v. State, 86 ‍​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‍Nev. 393, 469 P.2d 401 (1970); Gebert v. State, 85 Nev. 331, 454 P.2d 897 (1969); Mears v. State, 83 Nev. 3, 422 P.2d 230 (1967).

Affirmed.