STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent, v. MARTIN BRONZO, Appellant
State v. Bronzo
STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent, v. MARTIN BRONZO, Appellant.
[No. 1730.]
STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent, v. MARTIN BRONZO, Appellant.
1. Ceuidiai Law — Appeal — Pkooeedinss Not nsr Recoed — Geounds of Motion. . In a prosecution for murder, where the record on appeal only stated that the motions made by defendant as to the regularity of the grand jury were denied by the court, there being nothing to show upon what the court acted in denying the motions, and all presumptions being in favor of the proceedings below, it will be assumed that defendant’s objections were not supported by evidence.
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of Nevada, Eureka County; Peter Breen, Judge.
Martin Bronzo was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals..
Affirmed.
The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.
Henry K. Mitchell, for Appellant.
B. G. Stoddard, Attorney-General, for Respondent.
By the Court,
Sweeney, J. :
The defendant was indicted for the crime of murder, committed in the County of Eureka, and upon trial was found guilty of murder in the second degree; and sentenced by the Judge of the District Court of the Third Judicial District of Nevada, in and for Eureka County, to imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for thirty-five years. A motion in arrest of judgment and for a new trial were denied by the district court, and from such order the defendant appeals.
The only question presented upon this appeal is whether or not the grand jury which indicted defendant was legally impaneled. Counsel for the defendant challenged the panel of the grand jury upon several grounds. All that the record in this ease shows is that the motions made by the defendant in reference to the regularity of the grand jury which indicted the defendant were denied by the court. There is nothing in the record showing upon what the court acted, and, as all presumptions are in favor of the regularity of the proceedings of the trial court, we are bound to conclude that the grounds of objection made by defendant's counsel were not supported by the evidence and were devoid of merit. (State v. Wilson, 5 Nev. 43; State v. Wallin, 6 Nev. 280; State v. Bigg, 10 Nev. 288; State v. Ah Hung, 11 Nev. 428.)
The judgment and order of the trial court are affirmed.