means unknown." However, NRS 173.075(2) provides that a criminal
charge may allege that the means by which an offense was committed are
unknown. See West v. State, 119 Nev. 410, 419, 75 P.3d 808, 814 (2003)
("The Legislature has also provided that an information must specify the
means by which the charged offense was committed or allege that the
means are unknown."); Simpson v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 88 Nev.
654, 658, 503 P.2d 1225, 1228 (1972) (observing that NRS 173.075(2)
indicates that a charging document should "either include the means by
which the offense was accomplished or show means are unknown"), see
also Persons v. State, 714 S.W.2d 475, 478 (Tx. Ct. App. 1986) ("Where it is
doubtful how death was caused, it may be alleged that it was done by
some manner and means unknown to the grand jury"). Accordingly, we
conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court was
required, as a matter of law, to grant his pretrial habeas petition on this
grounc1. 2 See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court. (Armstrong), 127 Nev.,
Adv, Op. 84, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining arbitrary and capricious
exercise of discretion).
Second, petitioner argues that the evidence presented at the
preliminary hearing was insufficient to establish the corpus delecti as to
thefl murder and arson charges and that insufficient evidence supports an
allegation that he sexually assaulted the victim with an unidentified
2 To the extent petitioner argues that the amended information fails
to provide adequate notice respecting the allegation of felony murder
because it does not "advance the manner in which [the underlying
felonies] connect to the death of [the victim]," we conclude that he has not
shown that the district court manifestly abused its discretion by denying
his pretrial petition on this basis.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
object. Our review of a pretrial probable cause determination through an
original writ petition is disfavored, see Kuss man v. District Court, 96
Nev. 544, 545-46, 612 P.2d 679, 680 (1980), and petitioner has not
demonstrated that his challenge to the probable cause determination fits
the exceptions we have made for purely legal issues, see Ostman v. Eighth
Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 563, 565, 816 P.2d 458, 459-60 (1991);
State v. Babayan, 106 Nev. 155, 174, 787 P.2d 805, 819-20 (1990).
Having considered petitioner's arguments and concluded that
relief is not warranted, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
r5ap,
Saitta
Gibbofis
Pidel24 tup'
Pickering
J.
cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge
Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge
Special Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e