Opinion
No. 57941.
05-10-2011
Lacey Ruth–Marie AMBRO, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF the STATE of Nevada, In and for the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Valorie Vega, District Judge, Respondents, and The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest.
Law Offices of John G. Watkins Clark County District Attorney Attorney General/Carson City
Law Offices of John G. Watkins
Clark County District Attorney
Attorney General/Carson City
ORDER DENYING PETITION
In this original petition for a writ of habeas corpus, petitioner Lacey Ambro challenges an order of the district court denying her pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In the district court proceeding, Ambro petitioned for an order dismissing the indictment against her for lack of probable cause. Ambro claimed that insufficient evidence supported the indictment because the grand jury should not have been allowed to consider the affidavit of a State's witness who attested to the amount of prohibited substances in Ambro's blood, arguing that because the witness had not been qualified as an expert in the district court, NRS 50.320 did not supply a hearsay exception to the witness's affidavit testimony. The district court disagreed, finding that the witness's education and training were that of a chemist and concluding that the witness therefore fit the chemist's exception to qualification in district court in NRS 50.320(1). We decline to disturb the district court's factual finding and conclude that this court's intervention by way of writ of habeas corpus is not warranted.
NRS 50.320(1) states that “[t]he affidavit or declaration of a chemist and any other person who has qualified in a court of record in this State to testify as an expert ... is admissible in the manner provided in this section.”
We also note that although petitioner requests this court to apply Cramer v. State, DMV, 126 Nev. ––––, 240 P.3d 8 (2010), to her case, the chemist-exception issue was not addressed in Cramer, see 126 Nev. at –––– n.3, 240 P.3d at 11 n.3, and so Cramer does not control.
Accordingly, we
Ambro filed a motion to submit a reply to the State's answer on April 22, 2011. We grant the motion and have considered the reply that was included in the motion.