A petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition is
appropriate only where the petitioner has no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330.
Certain challenges to a charging document may be rendered moot by a
jury verdict resulting from a fair trial, such as challenges to the sufficiency
of the evidence to establish probable cause, United States v. Mechanik, 475
U.S. 66, 70 (1986), the failure to provide Marcum notice, Lisle v. State, 114
Nev. 221, 224-24, 954 P.2d 744, 746-47 (1998), the failure to present
exculpatory evidence to a grand jury, Echavarria v. State, 108 Nev. 734,
745 & n.4, 839 P.2d 589, 596 & n.4 (1992), and grand juror bias, Hill v.
State, 124 Nev. 546, 552, 188 P.3d 51, 54-55 (2008). In those situations,
the reasoning is that the error is rendered harmless by a verdict that is
based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. But the issue
presented here goes to the State's authority to proceed on the charging
document. That issue will not be rendered moot by a jury verdict resulting
from a fair trial. The issue therefore can be addressed on appeal in the
event that McClinton is convicted. See NRS 177.015(3); NRS 177.045. As
such, McClinton has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Given that remedy, we are not convinced that judicial economy warrants
our intervention. Accepting McClinton's argument in that regard would
inundate this court with even more pretrial writ petitions and would likely
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
.i7i1757,14FV" Va7.14- 4 7,"PaWf=9-,MVEGINIMICil
M4 . -g5fr j." , 4 111
cause unnecessary delay in the orderly processing of criminal cases in
district court, neither of which ultimately serves judicial economy. See
generally Nevada ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 662
P.2d 1338 (1983) (explaining that although issuance of pretrial writ of
mandamus arising in summary judgment context may save litigation
expenses and reduce district court's caseload, entertaining such petitions
inundated this court, were disruptive of the orderly processing of civil
cases in district court, increased expenses for the parties, and resulted in
few if any meritorious petitions while expending a great deal of this court's
limited resources).
Also weighing into our decision on this point is the fact that
the issue presented has been known to McClinton for some time (it was
litigated in the justice court in 2009 and in the district court in 2010).
Although McClinton represents that he wanted prior counsel to pursue a
writ petition earlier and that current counsel (his ninth) was not
appointed until August 2012, it remains that the issues presented have
been known for years but McClinton waited until the eve of trial to seek
relief from this court. Cf. State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Hedland),
116 Nev. 127, 135, 994 P.2d 692, 697 (2000) (explaining that laches applies
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
WEEMENIIMMIBINME dirsekr7;— Li
, [72,115 HMV
to a petition for a writ of mandamus). For these reasons, we decline to
intervene and we
ORDER the petition DISMISSED.'
Parraguirre
cc: Hon. Natalie L. Tyrrell, Justice of the Peace
Hon. Jerome T. Tao, District Judge
Hon. Kathy A. Hardcastle, Senior Judge
Pitaro & Fumo, Chtd.
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
'Given our resolution of the petition, we lift the stay imposed by our
prior order.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A
FED 11111111