was "based on original discovery, and discussions with witnesses in the 

case." But as the preliminary hearing proceeded, the prosecutor sought to 

admit a toxicology report that had not been included with the original 

discovery. The toxicology report provided the only evidence that petitioner 

had been under the influence of marijuana. 

Petitioner objected to the toxicology report. He asserted that 

the prosecutor was required to provide a copy of the report five days before 

the preliminary hearing, and he asked that the report not be admitted into 

evidence. The prosecutor acknowledged that it was probably true that 

petitioner did not have discovery of the report, but argued that petitioner 

was aware of the additional report and that the complaint would be 

amended to reflect the information in the report, and moved to admit the 

report pursuant to NRS 50.320 (an evidentiary rule). The justice court 

asked petitioner for the number of the statute that governed the 

timeliness of discovery for preliminary hearings and provided the remedy 

for untimely discovery. But petitioner did not know the statute number 

and ultimately the justice court determined that NRS 50.320 and NRS 

50.325 were dispositive of the issue and overruled petitioner's objection. 

Petitioner challenged the justice court's ruling in a pretrial 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the district court, seeking 

dismissal of the DUI charge. The district court heard argument, found 

that petitioner "did not specifically identify the statute NRS 171.1965 for 

the magistrate so the magistrate could have taken the options that are 

provided in that statute when there is a late identification of discovery," 

and denied the habeas petition. This mandamus petition followed. 

Petitioner argues that the district court abused its discretion 

and violated due process guarantees by denying his habeas petition 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1997A zem 
because the prosecutor lied about having no additional discovery when he 

filed the amended complaint, the prosecutor violated NRS 171.1965(1) by 

failing to provide discovery of the toxicology report at least five days prior 

to the preliminary hearing, and the district court's reason for denying the 

habeas petition has no basis in law. 

Availability of mandamus relief 

"A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and 

therefore, the decision to entertain the petition lies within our discretion. 

Such a writ is available only to compel the performance of an act which 

the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or 

station." Winkle v. Foster, 127 Nev. „ 269 P.3d 898, 899 (2011) 

(internal citation and quotation marks omitted). "[It] will not lie to control 

discretionary action, unless discretion is manifestly abused or exercised 

arbitrarily or capriciously." Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. 

Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (internal citation 

omitted); see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 

Nev. 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining manifest abuse and 

arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion in context of mandamus). 

And it will not issue if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate 

remedy in the ordinary course of the law. NRS 34.170. We have 

recognized that "[w]hether a future appeal is sufficiently adequate and 

speedy necessarily turns on the underlying proceedings' status, the types 

of issues raised in the writ petition, and whether a future appeal will 

permit this court to meaningfully review the issues presented," D.R. 

Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 

731, 736 (2007), and "[w]here the circumstances establish urgency or 

strong necessity, or an important issue of law requires clarification and 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) I947A 
public policy is served by this court's exercise of its original jurisdiction, 

this court may exercise its discretion to consider a petition for 

extraordinary relief," Schuster v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 

187, 190, 160 P.3d 873, 875 (2007). We conclude that a future appeal 

would not provide a meaningful review of petitioner's issues and a strong 

necessity exists for our consideration of his petition. 

Discussion 

The preliminary hearing transcript plainly reveals that the 

prosecutor misrepresented his actions by maintaining that the amended 

complaint was not based on new discovery. At worst, the prosecutor's 

behavior was intentional, and, at a minimum, it was reckless. Prosecutors 

have a duty to conduct themselves with honesty, candor, and fairness. See 

RPC 3.3; RPC 3.4; RPC 3.8. We conclude that the prosecutor's conduct 

breached that duty and requires remedial action. 

The preliminary hearing transcript also plainly reveals that 

petitioner's contemporaneous objection adequately placed the justice court 

on notice that the prosecutor may have violated a discovery statute. A 

justice court should be familiar with the statutes that govern conduct 

within its jurisdiction. NRS 171.1965 governs discovery prior to a 

preliminary hearing. It requires the prosecutor to provide discovery "not 

less than 5 judicial days before a preliminary examination," and it 

furnishes a limited remedy should the prosecutor fail to provide timely 

discovery. NRS 171.1965(1), (2). Had the justice court been familiar with 

the discovery statute, it could have properly exercised its jurisdiction by 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(01 1947A 
J. 

making findings as to whether petitioner was prejudiced by the discovery 

violation and postponement of the preliminary hearing was necessary.' 

The habeas hearing transcript plainly reveals that the district 

court erroneously believed that the petitioner's objection was inadequate 

because it failed to cite the pertinent statute. A party who objects to the 

admission of evidence must make "a timely objection or motion to strike 

. . . stating the specific ground of objection." NRS 47.040(1)(a). There is no 

requirement that the party cite to the statute that supports its objection. 

As stated above, petitioner's objection adequately placed the justice court 

on notice that the prosecutor may have violated a discovery statute. 

We conclude that petitioner is entitled to extraordinary relief 

from the prosecutor's misconduct. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition GRANTED IN PART AND DIRECT THE 

CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

instructing the district court to dismiss the amendments made to the 

original charging document; specifically, the "and/or a controlled 

substance and/or prohibited substance in blood" language that was added 

to count 1 and all of count 2. 

4-4-A LEgAtti 

Hardesty 

'Although the statute contemplates a limited remedy for a discovery 

violation, we note that a court would be justified in using its inherent 

authority to sanction counsel or refer him to the State Bar based on the 

kind of conduct reflected in this case. See SCR 39; Young v. Ninth 

Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 642, 647, 818 P.2d 844, 847 (1991). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 5 

(,) 947A 
cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge 

Hon. Joseph Bonaventure, Justice of the Peace 

Clark County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME Couni 

OF 

NEVADA 6 

(0) 1947A