State v. Dist. Ct. (Mccarty (Jason)) ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    THE STATE OF NEVADA,                                        No. 85284
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
    IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF                                     FILED
    CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE
    MICHELLE LEAVITT, DISTRICT                                   SEP 08 2022
    ELIZA:7.111TH A. BROWN
    JUDGE,                                                  CLERKQF CUPREME COURT
    Respondents,                                           BY
    DEPUTY CLERK
    and
    JASON DUVAL MCCARTY,
    Real Party in Interest.
    ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY
    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    This original, emergency petition for a writ of mandamus
    challenges a district court decision on the basis the district court manifestly
    abused its discretion when it refused to grant a mistrial based upon clear
    juror misconduct. Petitioner, the State, has also filed an emergency motion
    for stay.
    Having considered      the   petition   and the       transcripts of
    proceedings provided by the State, we are not persuaded that the State has
    demonstrated that our discretionary,         extraordinary intervention is
    warranted. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 
    107 Nev. 674
    , 677, 
    818 P.2d 849
    , 851 (1991) (providing that this court has sole discretion in
    determining if a writ petition will be considered); Pan v. Eighth Judicial
    Dist. Court, 
    120 Nev. 222
    , 228, 
    88 P.3d 840
    , 844 (2004) (explaining that
    petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    101 I 947A •
    i
    warranted). To the contrary, we conclude that writ relief is not justified
    because the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in finding
    that manifest necessity did not warrant granting the State's motion for a
    mistrial over the defendant's objection. Rudin v. State, 
    120 Nev. 121
    , 142,
    
    86 P.3d 572
    , 586 (2004) ("Where the State moves for a mistrial or the court
    declares a mistrial on its own motion, double jeopardy bars retrial unless
    the declaration of the mistrial was dictated by manifest necessity or the
    ends of justice." (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Jeffries v.
    State, 
    133 Nev. 331
    , 333, 
    397 P.3d 21
    , 25 (2017). Accordingly, we
    ORDER the petition DENIED.1
    Silver
    ,   J.
    Cadish
    Pick.            .   J.
    Pickering
    cc:   Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Clark County District Attorney
    Law Office of Christopher R. Oram
    Hofland & Tomsheck
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    I-Given our disposition, we deny as moot the State's emergency motion
    for stay of the district court proceedings.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    ill) 1947A
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 85284

Filed Date: 9/8/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/9/2022