Opinion ID: 2590670
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Failure to compel attendance of out-of-state witnesses

Text: Wilson next argues that the district court committed reversible error and violated his due process rights when it failed to compel two out-of-state witnesses to testify. Wilson claims the witnesses would have testified that they were with Wilson at all times during the dates listed on the indictment. Wilson argues that because the district court had the authority to compel the testimony of out-of-state witnesses under NRS 174.425 and did not do so, he was denied due process and his conviction should be reversed. As this court has often noted, the Sixth Amendment provides a criminal defendant with the right to compel the production of witnesses to testify on his or her behalf. [43] However, jurisdictional limitations inherently hinder a state court's ability to compel out-of-state witnesses because the State of Nevada cannot enforce a subpoena against a citizen of another state unless that party is present within this state. To ensure the attendance of out-of-state witnesses, the Legislature enacted NRS 174.395 to 174.445, known as the Uniform Act To Secure the Attendance of Witnesses From Without a State in Criminal Proceedings. [44] However, the right to produce an out-of-state witness is not absolute. [45] Under the Act, a trial court has discretion to issue a certificate summoning the attendance of an out-of-state witness based on a determination that the witness is material to the party's case. [46] As a result, we review a trial court's refusal to issue a certificate for an abuse of discretion. [47] This court has noted that it is reasonable for the trial court to refuse to issue a certificate to compel an out-of-state witness's attendance under certain circumstances. [48] In addition, we have concluded that it is unreasonable for the trial court to refuse to compel a witness merely because it doubts the veracity of his or her testimony. [49] However, where there are adequate substitutions for the witness's testimony, it is reasonable for a trial court to decline to compel the attendance of an out-of-state witness. [50] Initially, it is important to note that the district court in this case did indeed err with regard to the law. The trial court failed to recognize that it could compel out-of-state witnesses to appear. Wilson raised the issue before the district court on multiple occasions. When he raised the issue at trial, the following exchange occurred: MR. WILSON: There is no compulsory process at all to bring a witness and I don't have a fair trial? THE COURT: I cannot. MR. WILSON: They're an alibi witness. THE COURT: I'm going to tell you again, I don't know many other ways I can explain this to you. I don't have subpoena power. I cannot as a judge in Nevada order a California resident to appear in this court. They do not have to comply with my subpoena. I have no jurisdiction in California. And I explained this to you last week and explained to you that they were your family members and that you need to talk to them and get them to voluntarily appear. Following that exchange, the State made a lengthy showing for the record as to why the witnesses were not alibi witnesses and that there was inadequate notice before the trial court as to the witnesses' status as such. Wilson argues on appeal that he explained to the district court the materiality of the witnesses. However, the trial record cited by Wilson is for the sentencing hearing, which occurred on October 10, 2003. At that time, Wilson argued that it was crucial to his case because the two witnesses he intended to call would testify that they were with him during a portion of the time the State accused him of committing the acts in question. We conclude that it was legally incorrect for the district court to represent to Wilson that there was no procedure under Nevada law for a criminal defendant to compel the appearance of an out-of-state witness. The record indicates that Wilson raised the issue numerous times. The court went so far as to order his court-appointed investigator and standby counsel to do whatever was necessary to contact these witnesses for the defense. Although the record is unclear as to what steps the parties involved used to contact Wilson's relatives, they apparently were unsuccessful at procuring their attendance at his trial. It is surprising to us that the district attorney did not inform the district court of its obvious error, nor did standby counsel inform Wilson. Although the district court made a legal error, the denial of Wilson's request to subpoena out-of-state witnesses was justified because Wilson failed to show that the witnesses were material to his case and how their absence prejudiced the defense. Wilson did not make an offer of proof as to what the two out-of-state witnesses would have said in support of his case. In Wilson's motion for a mistrial, he stated that these two witnesses would have shown that he was with them during several dates in question. However, he did not represent that either of the witnesses would have testified that they were with him on November 15, 2001, the day the pictures were taken. Therefore, we conclude that Wilson has not shown how the testimony of the two witnesses would have assisted him, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wilson the requested relief.