Guzman v. Second Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.
| Decision Date | 30 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 81842,81842 |
| Citation | 496 P.3d 572 |
| Parties | Wilber Ernesto MARTINEZ GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. The SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF WASHOE; and the Honorable Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge, Respondents, and The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
John L. Arrascada, Public Defender, and John Reese Petty, Katheryn Hickman, Gianna M. Verness, and Joseph W. Goodnight, Chief Deputy Public Defenders, Washoe County, for Petitioner.
Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General, Carson City; Christopher J. Hicks, District Attorney, and Marilee Cate, Appellate Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County; Mark Jackson, District Attorney, Douglas County, for Real Party in Interest.
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, EN BANC.
This is the second time this court has considered the scope of a grand jury's authority to return an indictment for offenses committed by petitioner Wilber Ernesto Martinez Guzman. Last year, we held that a grand jury may inquire into an offense as long as venue is proper for that offense in the district court where the grand jury is impaneled. Martinez Guzman v. Second Judicial Dist. Court , 136 Nev. 103, 110, 460 P.3d 443, 450 (2020). Today, we consider whether venue is proper.
Martinez Guzman has been charged with committing three burglaries and two murders in Washoe County, and two burglaries and two murders in Douglas County. A Washoe County grand jury indicted him for all these offenses. Upon Martinez Guzman's motion to dismiss the Douglas County charges for lack of territorial jurisdiction, the district court found that venue was proper in Washoe County for each charge. We disagree. The State advanced several theories for why venue was proper in Washoe County, and venue for the Douglas County charges need only be proper under one justification for the Washoe County grand jury to have authority to indict Martinez Guzman. But the State's theories supporting venue were too speculative and unsupported by the evidence to make venue proper for any of the Douglas County charges. In particular, we conclude there was no act or effect requisite to the consummation of the Douglas County offenses that occurred in Washoe County to justify venue there under NRS 171.030. We also determine there was insufficient evidence that property taken from Douglas County had been brought into Washoe County to justify venue there under NRS 171.060. We therefore hold that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in denying Martinez Guzman's motion to dismiss the Douglas County charges for lack of venue.
Crimes and indictment
Martinez Guzman, a Carson City resident, is accused of committing five burglaries and four murders in three households between January 3 and January 16, 2019. First, according to the State, Martinez Guzman burglarized the David home in Reno (Washoe County) on two consecutive nights. There, among numerous other items, he stole the gun and ammunition that he went on to use in the subsequent crimes. Around five days later, the night of January 9, he burglarized the Koontz home and killed Constance Koontz in Gardnerville (Douglas County). That same week, he burglarized the Renken home in Gardnerville, killing Sophia Renken. He then returned to the David home the night of January 15, burglarizing it and killing Gerald and Sharon David. In a police interview following his arrest on January 19, Martinez Guzman confessed to the crimes, told police he had observed the homes while working for a landscaping business, and directed police to a location in Carson City where he had buried other weapons taken from the David home. Martinez Guzman stated he drove the same car to each of the homes. When officers searched his car after his arrest in Carson City, they discovered a .22 caliber revolver and ammunition, a small pendant and an airline document from the Koontz home, and a name tag from the David home.
In March 2019, a grand jury returned an indictment with ten felony counts in the Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County. The evidence consisted mostly of Martinez Guzman's police interview. Counts I, II, and IX charge the burglaries of the David home in Washoe County, and counts VII and VIII charge the murders of the Davids. Counts III, IV, V, and VI (collectively, the Douglas County charges) charge the burglaries and murders at the Koontz and Renken homes in Douglas County. Count X charges possession of the stolen firearms in Washoe County and/or Douglas County and/or Carson City. The State subsequently filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty.
Past matter before this court
Martinez Guzman moved to dismiss the Douglas County charges on the ground that the Washoe County grand jury lacked jurisdiction under NRS 172.105, which allows grand juries to "inquire into all public offenses triable in the district court or in a Justice Court, committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the district court for which it is impaneled." The district court denied the motion to dismiss after concluding that the court's territorial jurisdiction extended statewide. Martinez Guzman , 136 Nev. at 105, 460 P.3d at 446.
Id. at 104, 460 P.3d at 445 (emphasis added). If venue was improper, we explained, "then the Washoe County grand jury does not have the authority to inquire into the Douglas County offenses, and the district court must grant Martinez Guzman's motion to dismiss." Id. at 104, 460 P.3d at 446.
Proceedings on remand
The district court reheard the motion to dismiss after supplemental briefing. Martinez Guzman argued that only two venue statutes— NRS 171.030 and NRS 171.060 —were applicable, and they did not support venue in Washoe County for the Douglas County charges. The State countered that venue was appropriate in Washoe County under the applicable venue statutes and that the district court could also consider other statutes like NRS 173.115 () and NRS 171.020 (). The district court again denied the motion to dismiss, finding that venue was proper in Washoe County for all charges and, thus, the grand jury had authority to indict Martinez Guzman on the Douglas County charges.
Martinez Guzman again petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus on the ground that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in finding venue proper in Washoe County.
We choose to entertain this writ petition
Whether a writ of mandamus will be considered is within this court's sole discretion. Smith v . Eighth Judicial Dist. Court , 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). A writ of mandamus is available to "compel the performance of an act that the law requires" or "to control a manifest abuse or arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion." State v . Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong) , 127 Nev. 927, 931, 267 P.3d 777, 779 (2011). Mandamus may be appropriate "when an important issue of law needs clarification and sound judicial economy and administration favor the granting of the petition." State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court (Ducharm), 118 Nev. 609, 614, 55 P.3d 420, 423 (2002). However, the writ will not be issued if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.170.
Here, the petition touches on an important and largely unsettled legal question in Nevada: what nexus between where a crime is committed and where it is charged must exist to make venue proper. If this matter were to proceed to a complex capital trial on all of these charges, only for this court to find on appeal that the Washoe County grand jury lacked authority to indict on the Douglas County charges, much time and judicial resources would be wasted. Thus, the interests of sound judicial administration and clear law favor our consideration of this petition.
Generally , venue is only proper in the county where the crime is committed
In our first Martinez Guzman opinion, we tasked the district court to analyze venue "under the applicable statutes." Martinez Guzman , 136 Nev. at 110, 460 P.3d at 450. We take this opportunity to note that, in many instances, no specific venue statute applies and the general common law rule that "each county will have independent jurisdiction over a criminal offender for conduct occurring in that county" governs. Zebe v. State , 112 Nev. 1482, 1484-85, 929 P.2d 927, 929 (1996). This makes sense—when it is clear where a crime has been committed, community interest weighs towards prosecution in the county where that crime has been committed. However, there are statutory exceptions that allow some crimes to be prosecuted in more than one county. Whether the Washoe County grand jury had authority to indict Martinez Guzman on the Douglas County charges—burglaries and murders that no one disputes happened in Douglas County homes—depends on whether venue to try those crimes in Washoe County is proper under any of those statutory exceptions.
Venue was not proper in Washoe County under NRS 171.030 for the Douglas County offenses
NRS 171.030 governs venue...
To continue reading
Request your trial