305 P.3d 887
Nev.2013Background
- Rugamas charged with sexual assault and lewdness of a child under 14; grand jury heard testimony including out-of-court statements by the child victim about acts of sexual conduct.
- The State presented the victim’s statements through witnesses A.C., Y.V., Elsa, and Ebrahim at the grand jury.
- Nevada law prohibits grand juries from considering hearsay under NRS 172.135(2).
- NRS 51.385 creates a trustworthiness-based hearsay exception for statements by a child under 10, but only in a court proceeding with a pre-trial trustworthiness hearing.
- The district court concluded the statements were non-hearsay because inconsistent with testimony or admissible under NRS 51.385; the court’s ruling is challenged by Rugamas.
- The court ultimately grants the petition, holding NRS 51.385 does not apply to grand jury proceedings and the indictment cannot stand without the hearsay evidence
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the victim’s out-of-court statements were hearsay and admissible at the grand jury. | State argues statements are admissible under NRS 51.385. | Rugamas contends NRS 51.385 does not apply to grand jury proceedings; cross-examination requirements render statements hearsay. | Statements are hearsay; NRS 51.385 does not apply to grand jury proceedings. |
| Whether the statements could be treated as prior inconsistent statements to avoid hearsay. | State treats inconsistent statements as non-hearsay if cross-examination is allowed. | Because victim was not cross-examined, statements cannot be non-hearsay. | Not applicable as grand jury lacked cross-examination; statements remain hearsay. |
| Whether the grand jury could sustain probable cause without the victim’s statements. | Probable cause could rely on the heard evidence presented. | Without hearsay evidence, there is insufficient evidence of probable cause. | Indictment fatally deficient; writ mandamus directs dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gordon v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 112 Nev. 216, 913 P.2d 240 (1996) (hearsay exceptions in grand jury context; some exceptions can apply to grand jury)
- Miranda v. State, 101 Nev. 562, 707 P.2d 1121 (1985) (inconsistent statements admissible as substantive evidence when cross-examined)
- Sheriff v. Hodes, 96 Nev. 184, 606 P.2d 178 (1980) (prosecutor’s burden regarding probable cause and evidence sufficiency)
- Avery v. State, 122 Nev. 278, 129 P.3d 664 (2006) (probable-cause standard; slight evidence may suffice)
- Braunstein v. State, 118 Nev. 68, 40 P.3d 413 (2002) (harmless-error review for trustworthiness proceedings)
- Lytle v. State, 107 Nev. 589, 816 P.2d 1082 (1991) (NRS 51.385 distinguished as requiring a pre-trial trustworthiness hearing)