Opinion
No. 65312
04-02-2014
LINDA COONEY, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH GOFF GONZALEZ, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying in part a motion in limine to exclude evidence in a criminal trial. We are not convinced that our intervention is warranted. In particular, petitioner has an adequate remedy at law—she may challenge the district court's evidentiary decision on appeal in the event that she is convicted, NRS 177.015(3); NRS 177.045—and therefore a writ of mandamus or prohibition should not issue. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. The petition does not present any circumstances that reveal urgency or a strong necessity for this court's intervention despite the availability of an effective alternative remedy. See Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. ___, ___, 262 P.3d 360, 364-65 (2011) (explaining that opportunity to appeal generally precludes writ relief to challenge pretrial evidentiary decisions but there are "narrow exceptions" to that rule when '"an important issue of law needs clarification and public policy is served by this court's invocation of its original jurisdiction,"' when the petition presents issues of "'first impression and of fundamental public importance,'" or when resolution of the petition '"will mitigate or resolve related or future litigation"' (citations omitted)); Salaiscooper v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 117 Nev. 892, 901-02, 34 P.3d 509, 515-16 (2001) (similar). We therefore decline to exercise our discretion to consider the petition, see State ex rel. Dep't Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 662 P.2d 1338 (1983), and we
We also note that the evidentiary issue does not implicate the district court's jurisdiction, and therefore a writ of prohibition would be inappropriate on that basis as well. See NRS 34.320 (providing that writ of prohibition may issue to arrest proceedings of district court exercising its judicial functions when such proceedings are in excess of district court's jurisdiction).
The motion for a stay is denied as moot.
--------
__________, J.
Pickering
__________, J.
Parraguirre
__________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge
Las Vegas Defense Group, LLC
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk