Lopez (Jonathan) v. Dist. Ct. (State) ( 2013 )

 In Widdis, we clearly explained that before ruling on a motion
for employment of an expert at public expense, the district court must
make a determination as to whether the defendant is indigent and the
expert is reasonably necessary for the defendant's defense. See id. at
1230, 968 P.2d at 1169. Here, the district court did neither. Instead, it
summarily denied petitioner's request without conducting the analysis
required by this court. This was an arbitrary or capricious exercise of
discretion. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev.
267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining arbitrary and capricious).
Although petitioner has represented to this court that his
family retained counsel on his behalf, the expert is necessary for his
defense, and provided this court with his application for Widdis fees
indicating that his household debts exceed his assets, we conclude that it
would be premature to direct the district court to order the employment of
the expert without specific findings. See Widdis, 114 Nev. at 1228, 968
P.2d at 1167-68. Therefore, we grant the petition, in part, and direct the
clerk of this court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the district court
to vacate its order denying petitioner's motion, hold a hearing, and grant
the motion if the district court determines that petitioner is indigent and
the expert testimony is reasonably necessary for petitioner's defense.
It is so ORDERED.
J.
Douglas
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Doug Smith, District Judge
Dayvid J. Figler
Kristina M. Wildeveld
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A