evidentiary rulings, as those rulings are discretionary" and defendant may
appeal if convicted); Hardin v. Griffin, 98 Nev. 302, 304, 646 P.2d 1216,
1217 (1982) (observing that challenges to admissibility of evidence on
constitutional grounds "should be made in a motion to suppress evidence,
and review of the district court's ruling may be sought following trial and
conviction"). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b).
It is so ORDERED.'
cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge
Oronoz & Ericsson
Brown Law Office
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
"The petition includes a request for a stay of the trial scheduled for
July 15, 2013. Because such a request must be made in separate motion
that complies with NRAP 27 and explains why a stay is warranted,
petitioner's request is improper. Nevertheless, considering our decision,
we deny petitioner's request as moot.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A