History
  • No items yet
midpage
Pinana v. Second Judicial District Court
334 P.2d 843
Nev.
1959
Check Treatment

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Petitioner is accused of murder in a criminal trial now pending before respondent court. She seeks a writ of mandate compelling respondent court to direct that she be allowed pretrial inspection of certain statements made by her to the district attorney of Washoe County, the results of certain blood alcohol tests, and an autopsy report. ■

A motion made by petitioner for an order requiring *75 production of these documents was denied by respondent court, and this proceeding was then brought.

Petitioner contends that denial of her motion was an abuse of discretion on the part of respondent court which has prejudiced her ability to prepare for trial.

It may well be that there is merit in this contention. We cannot reach the problem in this proceeding, however.

It is the settled law of this state that mandamus will not lie to control judicial discretion or to review the propriety of judicial action. State ex rel. Phillips v. District Court, 46 Nev. 25, 207 P. 80; State ex rel. Webber v. McFadden, 46 Nev. 1, 205 P. 594; State v. Ninth Judicial District Court, 40 Nev. 163, 161 P. 510.

Writ denied.

Case Details

Case Name: Pinana v. Second Judicial District Court
Court Name: Nevada Supreme Court
Date Published: Jan 30, 1959
Citation: 334 P.2d 843
Docket Number: 4180
Court Abbreviation: Nev.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Log In