Opinion
No. 65539
05-12-2014
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss an indictment based on the State's failure to preserve material, exculpatory evidence.
"A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to control a manifest abuse or arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion." State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. ___, ___, 267 P.3d 777, 779 (2011) (citation omitted). The writ will not issue, however, if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170. And, because a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, the decision to entertain a petition for the writ lies within our discretion. Hickey v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 105 Nev. 729, 731, 782 P.2d 1336, 1338 (1989).
Having considered the petition and its accompanying documents, we are not satisfied that our intervention by way of extraordinary writ is warranted. As a general rule we will not review challenges to evidentiary rulings by way of a mandamus petition because these rulings are discretionary. See Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. ___, ___, 262 P.3d 360, 365 (2011). Moreover, petitioner has an adequate remedy at law by way of an appeal should he be convicted. See NRS 177.015(3). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
__________, J.
Hardesty
__________, J.
Douglas
__________, J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge
Louis C. Schneider, LLC
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk