From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sheriff v. Provenza

Supreme Court of Nevada
Jul 2, 1981
97 Nev. 346 (Nev. 1981)

Summary

holding that the district court's ruling regarding probable cause will not be overturned absent substantial error

Summary of this case from V.B. v. State (In re V.B.)

Opinion

No. 12572

July 2, 1981

Appeal from Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; J. Charles Thompson, Judge.

Richard H. Bryan, Attorney General, Carson City; Robert Miller, District Attorney, and David P. Schwartz, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Appellant.

Goodman, Oshins, Brown Singer, and William B. Terry, Las Vegas, for Respondent.


OPINION


Appellant Sheriff of Clark County has appealed from a district court order granting respondent Provenza's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

In granting the writ, the district judge found that there was insufficient evidence to establish probable cause to hold Provenza for trial. On this appeal, which was scheduled for oral argument at the request of the Clark County District Attorney pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(3), we are asked by the state to review the record and make an independent determination as to the sufficiency of the evidence.

NRS 34.380 permits the state to appeal from a district court order granting a writ of habeas corpus. NRS 34.380(6). There is no corresponding appellate review from orders denying pretrial petitions. Gary v. Sheriff, 96 Nev. 78, 608 P.2d 1106 (1980); Konstantinidis v. Sheriff, 96 Nev. 285, 607 P.2d 584 (1980).

Considerations of judicial efficiency provide an independent basis in support of our reluctance to review probable cause factual determinations in pretrial matters. Kussman v. District Court, 96 Nev. 54, 612 P.2d 679 (1980). Although we have recognized that there is a different degree of finality between the denial and granting of habeas relief, Gary, supra, broad review by this Court of factual issues related to probable cause would in many instances be inconsistent with sound judicial administration.

The trial court is the most appropriate forum in which to determine factually whether or not probable cause exists. In re Eastham, 96 Nev. 785, 617 P.2d 1304 (1980). Absent a showing of substantial error on the part of the district court in reaching such determinations, this court will not overturn the granting of pretrial habeas petitions for lack of probable cause.

Accordingly, the order of the district court granting respondent's pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.


Summaries of

Sheriff v. Provenza

Supreme Court of Nevada
Jul 2, 1981
97 Nev. 346 (Nev. 1981)

holding that the district court's ruling regarding probable cause will not be overturned absent substantial error

Summary of this case from V.B. v. State (In re V.B.)

In Provenza, we explicitly recognized that the trial court is the most appropriate forum in which to determine factually whether or not probable cause exists.

Summary of this case from Sheriff v. Miley

In Sheriff v. Provenza, 97 Nev. 346, 630 P.2d 265 (1981), we held that, absent a showing of substantial error on the part of the district court, this court will not overturn the granting of a pretrial habeas petition for lack of probable cause.

Summary of this case from Sheriff v. Blasko
Case details for

Sheriff v. Provenza

Case Details

Full title:SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, APPELLANT, v. MICHAEL J. PROVENZA…

Court:Supreme Court of Nevada

Date published: Jul 2, 1981

Citations

97 Nev. 346 (Nev. 1981)
630 P.2d 265

Citing Cases

Sheriff v. Miley

Kinsey v. Sheriff, 87 Nev. 361, 363, 487 P.2d 340, 341 (1971). Our dissenting brethren view the majority…

Sheriff v. Steward

"Absent a showing of substantial error on the part of the district court in reaching [probable cause]…