Opinion
No. 58675.
07-14-2011
Prentice MARSHALL, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, in and for the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Kenneth C. Cory, District Judge, Respondents, and The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest.
Patti, Sgro & Lewis Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney
Patti, Sgro & Lewis
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss an indictment on the grounds that the real party in interest introduced inadmissible evidence, namely bad act evidence, to the grand jury, thereby tainting the proceedings. Having reviewed the grand jury transcript and the district court's ruling, we conclude that even if the challenged evidence was improperly introduced, sufficient evidence supports the grand jury's finding of probable cause, see Avery v. State, 122 Nev. 278, 285, 129 P.3d 664, 669 (2006) (stating that “despite the presentation of improper or inadmissible evidence to a grand jury, an indictment will be sustained ‘if there is the slightest sufficient legal evidence and best in degree appearing in the record” (quoting Robertson v. State, 84 Nev. 559, 561–62, 445 P.2d 352, 353 (1968) ); Dettloff v. State, 120 Nev. 588, 595, 97 P.3d 586, 590 (2004). Because the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the indictment, see NRS 34.160, we deny the petition, see NRAP 21(b).
We deny petitioner's motion to stay the district court proceedings.