Davis v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark
129 Nev. 116
| Nev. | 2013Background
- Original writ petition challenging grand jury notice service in a Nevada criminal case.
- Davis faced multi-count robbery-related charges; a criminal complaint was filed March 16, 2011.
- Tannery appointed Davis’s counsel on August 25–26, 2011; notice of appointment served then.
- Grand jury notice was sent by facsimile to Tannery’s office on August 25, 2011.
- Indictment returned after grand jury proceedings in 2011–2012; Davis moved to dismiss for inadequate notice.
- District court denied the motion; petition for writ of mandamus followed and this Court granted consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is facsimile service of grand jury notice adequate under NRS 172.241(2)? | Davis contends personal service is required by statute. | State contends statute does not require personal service when notice is properly delivered. | Facsimile service is adequate; NRS 172.241(2) does not mandate personal service. |
| Does NRS 178.589(1) permit service by facsimile where counsel represents the defendant? | Unreliability of fax undermines adequacy of service. | Statute allows fax service to the attorney’s office if conditions are met. | Yes, facsimile service satisfies NRS 178.589(1) where the fax is to the attorney’s office and the machine is operational. |
| Was it fatal that the notice did not state date, time, and place of the grand jury hearing? | Notice omissions render it inadequate. | Date/time/place need not be included if the target later provides written request for them. | Not fatal; the date/time/place information is provided upon the target’s written request per NRS 172.241(2)(b). |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment? | Denial constitutes arbitrary or capricious action. | No manifest abuse or arbitrary discretion in denial. | No abuse of discretion; petition denied. |
| If the notice was not served by State or Tannery, does that defeat adequacy? | Notice must be from State or proper official source. | Counsel may be served; service on counsel suffices under NRS 172.241(2)(a). | Notice may be served on counsel; service by facsimile remains adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Solis-Ramirez v. District Court, 112 Nev. 344, 913 P.2d 1293 (Nev. 1996) (writ appropriate for inadequate notice of a grand jury hearing)
- Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 637 P.2d 534 (Nev. 1981) (mandamus and discretion framework)
- State v. Dist. Ct. (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 267 P.3d 777 (Nev. 2011) (defines manifest abuse of discretion and related standards)
- Redeker v. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 164, 127 P.3d 520 (Nev. 2006) (courts may invoke mandamus in appropriate notice issues)
- Hidalgo v. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 330, 184 P.3d 377 (Nev. 2008) (guidance on discretionary review in mandamus context)
- Speer v. State, 116 Nev. 677, 5 P.3d 1063 (Nev. 2000) (plain-language interpretation principle for statutes)
- Anthony Lee R., A Minor v. State, 113 Nev. 1406, 952 P.2d 1 (Nev. 1997) (plain-meaning rule applied to statutory text)
- Schuster v. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 187, 160 P.3d 873 (Nev. 2007) (emergency/urgent matter and original jurisdiction considerations)