# Thompson v. State

> Nevada Supreme Court · March 11, 1969 · 85 Nev. 134

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629153

## Case

- **Full name:** TOMMY THOMPSON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
- **Court:** Nevada Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 11, 1969
- **Citations:** 85 Nev. 134; 451 P.2d 704; 1969 Nev. LEXIS 503
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Collins
- **Judges:** Batjer, Collins, Mowbray, Thompson, Zenoff
- **Cited by:** 50 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629153

## Opinion text

Collins, C. J.,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
I concur in the result announced by the court’s opinion and certain of the reasoning leading to that result.
I dissent, however, from extension of the doctrine of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) to a pretrial examination of'photos or mug-shots ,of a suspect then in custody. If the rule *141 in Wade is to be thus extended, it should be done by the United States Supreme Court, but not this court.
The majority opinion seems anxious to once more outleap the United States Supreme Court. I feel no legal compulsion to join in that leap.
The record in this case leaves no doubt the true identification of appellant by both the victim and the two women was from their observations at the scene of the crime, independent of pretrial identification. The majority opinion agrees. We should stop there and at least wait until a pretrial identification from mug shots presents a serious question of prejudice before we undertake pronouncement of another constitutional rule in the evidence field.
Mowbray, J., concurs with the views expressed above by Chief Justice Collins.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629153. Public record. Not legal advice.