State v. The Eighth Judicial District Court of State, 83269

Citation83269
Case DateFebruary 18, 2022
CourtSupreme Court of Nevada

THE STATE OF NEVADA, Petitioner,
v.

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OFCLARK; AND THE HONORABLE MONICA TRUJILLO, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents,

and BRANDON ALEXANDER MCGUIRE,

No. 83269

Supreme Court of Nevada

February 18, 2022


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER DENYING PETITION

In this original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, I the State challenges a district court ruling granting a motion to preclude I testimony from the alleged victim after the State failed to comply with NRS 174.234's notice requirements.

The State argues that mandamus relief is warranted because the district court manifestly abused its discretion by striking its witness after the State failed to disclose the witness's address under NRS 174.234.[1]

1

It adds that, because it cannot appeal the district court's order, it has an inadequate remedy at law that warrants writ relief.

The decision to entertain a writ petition is within our discretion. Daane v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 654, 655, 261 P.3d 1086, 1087 (2011). We "may exercise . . . [our] discretion to entertain a petition for mandamus relief where the circumstances reveal urgency and strong necessity," Barngrover v. Fourth Judicial Dist. Court, 115 Nev. 104, 111, 979 P.2d 216, 220 (1999), such as when "the State has no other remedy at law because it cannot appeal the final judgment in a criminal case," State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011). Thus, we choose to entertain the State's mandamus petition.

In determining whether to issue a writ of mandamus, we "consider[ ] whether the district court's evidentiary ruling was a manifest abuse or arbitrary or capricious exercise of its discretion." Id. "A manifest abuse of discretion is a clearly erroneous interpretation of the law or a clearly erroneous application of a law or rule." Id. at 932, 267 P.3d at 780 (internal quotation marks omitted).

At least five-judicial days before a felony trial, the State is required to provide the defendant with "written notice containing the names and last known addresses of all witnesses" it intends to call. NRS l74.234(1)(a)(2). If the State fails to provide this statutory notice, the district court "may . . . prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed." NRS 174.295(2) (emphasis added).

Under the plain meaning of NRS 174.295(2), the district court had discretion to prohibit the State's witness from testifying after the State

2

failed to disclose the witness's address under NRS I74.234(1)(a)(2). Because NRS 174.295(2) gives the district court discretion to exclude an improperly-noticed witness, we conclude that the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion-which requires an erroneous interpretation of law-by striking the State's witness.[2] See Lund v....

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT