Opinion ID: 2617027
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Endorsement of a witness

Text: Dossey first contends that the district court erred by allowing Walrath, the lab technician who performed the blood analysis, to testify. He argues that because the information only endorsed Walrath as Sierra Nevada Laboratories: lab technician, her name was not properly endorsed as required by NRS 173.045(2). [1] The state responds that it did not know the name of the specific lab technician who analyzed Dossey's blood until shortly before trial. The state further points out that Dossey never attempted to obtain Walrath's name prior to trial. Whether the state may be allowed to endorse the name of a witness on the information is largely within the trial court's discretion, and absent an abuse of that discretion or a substantial injury to the defendant, this court will not reverse an order permitting such an endorsement. Dalby v. State, 81 Nev. 517, 519, 406 P.2d 916, 917 (1965). Further, [a]bsent evidence to the contrary, an unendorsed witness is presumed to have been unknown to the district attorney. Redmen v. State, 108 Nev. 227, 233, 828 P.2d 395, 399 (1992), overruled on other grounds by Alford v. State, 111 Nev. 1409, 906 P.2d 714 (1995). We conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, endorsing Walrath as Sierra Nevada Laboratories: lab technician was a sufficient endorsement because she was only one of two or three technicians at that facility qualified to analyze blood alcohol content, and with only minimal and reasonable efforts, Dossey could have found out Walrath's name if that information was imperative. In addition, even if the state erred by not previously endorsing Walrath by name, the proper remedy is a continuance, not exclusion of the witness's testimony as Dossey requested. See id. at 234, 828 P.2d at 400; Barker v. State, 95 Nev. 309, 315, 594 P.2d 719, 722-23 (1979). Dossey never requested a continuance. Moreover, we note that Dossey incurred no substantial injury as his attorney was able to conduct a well-prepared and extensive cross-examination of Walrath, even without previously knowing her name. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion.