Opinion ID: 2569983
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Protecting a criminal defendant's right to confront witnesses against him requires procedural safeguards

Text: Hernandez argues that EDCR 3.20(a) and 3.28 and NRS 174.125 required the State to make its motion for admission of the preliminary hearing testimony in writing. The State responds that those rules do not apply in this case because it did not know of the need to admit the preliminary hearing testimony until the morning of trial. Hernandez, anticipating that response, also argues that the district court erred by not requiring a written affidavit or sworn testimony to show good cause why the motion could not have been made prior to trial, following the procedure for motions to continue preliminary hearings required by Bustos v. Sheriff. [16] We agree that the procedural safeguards addressed in Bustos should apply to motions to admit preliminary hearing testimony. NRS 174.125 requires motions in the district court, which by their nature, if granted, delay or postpone the time of trial, [17] to be made at least 15 days before the scheduled trial date, unless the trial court finds good cause to hear the motion closer to trial. A party making a motion fewer than 15 days before trial must submit an affidavit to the court to establish good cause for making the untimely motion. [18] EDCR 3.28 also requires parties to make motions to admit evidence no later than the calendar call for a trial or seven days prior to trial. The rule further grants courts in that district discretion not to hear untimely motions. [19] For all motions, not just those that may delay trial or those seeking to admit or exclude evidence, EDCR 3.20(a) requires a party to support an untimely motion with an affidavit showing good cause. In Bustos, we addressed the necessity of affidavits to show good cause in the specific circumstance of a prosecutor seeking a continuance of a preliminary hearing due to the unavailability of witnesses. [20] We had previously required a prosecutor who moved for such a continuance to submit an affidavit stating: (a) the names of the absent witnesses and their present residences, if known; (b) the diligence used to procure their attendance; (c) a brief summary of the expected testimony of such witnesses and whether the same facts can be proven by other witnesses; (d) when the affiant first learned that the attendance of such witnesses could not be obtained; and (e) that the motion is made in good faith and not for delay. [21] We modified that rule in Bustos by allowing the State to present sworn testimony concerning the above requirements because we recognized that situations might arise preventing the State from submitting an affidavit. [22] In Jasper v. Sheriff, we extended Bustos by allowing the State to supplement an otherwise deficient affidavit with oral testimony but expressly required such testimony to be under oath. [23] Whether there is good cause to make an untimely motion for admission of preliminary hearing testimony requires the district court to make a factual finding that the State exercised reasonable diligence before NRS 174.125's pretrial motion deadline. [24] The procedural safeguards addressed in Bustos apply equally to this situation and require that such a motion be supported by an affidavit. Therefore, to establish good cause for making an untimely motion to admit preliminary hearing testimony, the State must provide an affidavit or sworn testimony regarding its efforts to procure the witness prior to the pretrial motion deadline. [25] In this case, the district court did not require the State to establish good cause for failing to file the motion before trial by affidavit or sworn testimony. In fact, the State moved for admission of the preliminary hearing testimony and the district court made its initial decision to grant the motion off the record. Before making a record of its decision, the district court allowed the State, in its opening statement, to inform the jury of Grijalva's unavailability and that it would hear her prior testimony. After opening statements, at the time the district court made a record of its decision, the State told the district court that it was unaware of Grijalva's unavailability until it received a note during voir dire. The State further described the circumstances, but it is clear from the record that it had no personal knowledge of the facts it presented. [26] The State told the district court that its investigator had been in contact with Grijalva; the State had made flight arrangements for her to travel to Las Vegas from her home in Arizona; and when its investigator went to pick up Grijalva at the airport, she was not there. The State's investigator called Grijalva's house and was told by a young girl that Grijalva had left Arizona due to a family emergency. On appeal, the State concedes that the district court did not require any sworn testimony to support its motion to admit Grijalva's preliminary hearing testimony and does not argue that procedural rules from Bustos should not apply to untimely motions to admit prior testimony at trial. The State argues, however, that this court designed the protections in Bustos to prevent the State from abusing the judicial process, and because there was no evidence of abuse in this case, the judgment of conviction should not be reversed. In Bustos, we discussed the need for procedural safeguards where there was a willful failure of the prosecution to comply with important procedural rules, and where the prosecutor had exhibited a conscious indifference to rules of procedure affecting the defendant's rights. [27] We determined that the prosecutor should have been required to orally testify under oath concerning good cause to seek the continuance. But because the record did not reveal abuse of the procedural rules, and the prosecutor could have shown good cause, we held that the granting of a continuance was not reversible error. [28] As in Bustos, we will not here fault the district court for failing to comply with a prophylactic rule not heretofore ... suggested; [29] however, it is not clear from the record in this case that the State could have demonstrated good cause. Because the State only had good cause to make an untimely motion to admit preliminary hearing testimony if it exercised reasonable diligence to secure Grijalva's attendance at trial, we next address the reasonableness of the State's actions.