431 P.3d 47
Nev.2018Background
- Defendant Francisco Ojeda, charged with murder, moved pretrial to compel the State to disclose criminal-history records the prosecutor obtained for veniremembers from government databases unavailable to the defense.
- Parties agreed that the Second Judicial District provides a venire list to both sides, but the State uses government criminal-record databases the defense cannot access.
- The district court ordered the State to disclose any veniremember criminal histories it gathered from such government databases to the court (and then to defense) before trial, citing NRS 179A.100(7)(j) and the court’s authority to ensure fairness.
- The State filed a petition for writ of prohibition or mandamus, arguing the district court lacked authority to compel disclosure of prosecution-gathered juror background information.
- The Nevada Supreme Court granted discretionary review of the writ petition to resolve the recurring issue and address differing departmental practices in the district.
Issues
| Issue | Ojeda's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may order the State to disclose veniremember criminal histories obtained from government databases unavailable to the defense | Court should correct information disparity and order disclosure under NRS 179A.100 and the court’s discovery/control powers | No constitutional, statutory, or other authority permits forced disclosure of prosecution’s juror-research or work product | District courts have authority to order disclosure of veniremember criminal-history information obtained from government databases not available to the defense; writ denied |
| Whether the district court abused discretion or acted arbitrarily in ordering disclosure | The order remedied an unfair informational advantage; disclosure limited to database-derived criminal histories | The order improperly intrudes on prosecutorial work product and juror privacy, and may conflict with statutes limiting dissemination | The court found the order was not arbitrary or capricious: factual basis (disparity) supported, and disclosure limited to database-derived criminal histories |
| Whether the prosecution’s veniremember database printouts are protected work product | Defense: raw criminal-history data is not attorney mental impressions and thus not protected | State: such materials are prosecutorial work product and should be withheld | Court declined to accept unpreserved work-product argument; held raw database records are not the attorney’s mental impressions and disclosure may be ordered when derived from inaccessible government databases |
| Scope and limits of the disclosure requirement | Defense sought only criminal-history data from inaccessible government databases | State argued disclosure could include sensitive/private data and violate statutory restrictions | Court limited requirement to criminal-history information derived from government databases unavailable to defense and noted other legal privacy protections remain applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Artiga‑Morales v. State, 130 Nev. 795, 335 P.3d 179 (2014) (rejected reversal for denial of motion to compel prosecution-gathered juror background information on direct appeal)
- Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 818 P.2d 849 (1991) (writ standards; prohibition for acting without or in excess of jurisdiction)
- State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 267 P.3d 777 (2011) (mandamus controls arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion)
- Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 103 P.3d 25 (2004) (district courts have broad discovery discretion)
- Halverson v. Hardcastle, 123 Nev. 245, 163 P.3d 428 (2007) (scope and limits of the court’s inherent authority)
- People v. Murtishaw, 29 Cal.3d 733, 631 P.2d 446 (1981) (noting prosecutors’ informational advantage regarding prospective jurors)