Opinion ID: 1418188
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Commingling of Judicial and Prosecutorial Functions.

Text: Appellant contends that there was an improper commingling of judicial and prosecutorial functions during the Commission proceedings in that a Deputy Attorney General participated by advising the Commission on evidentiary matters, while his subordinate in the same office was engaged in prosecuting appellant. This contention, unsupported by case authority, is adequately answered by this court's ruling in Rudin v. Nevada Real Estate Advisory Commission, supra, 86 Nev. at 565, 471 P.2d at 660: It is not uncommon in administrative law to find the combination of investigating, prosecuting and judging functions. As a general proposition, such a combination, standing alone, does not constitute a denial of due process. 2 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 13.02. Such combination of functions possesses the potential for unfairness, but unfairness is not its inevitable consequence. In the matter at hand that combination did not exist. The investigation was conducted by investigators, the prosecution, by counsel for the Commission, and the decision was made by the Commission itself. There is nothing to suggest that the prosecutor decided the case... . Here, the separation was even more clearly defined. The Commission alone performed all adjudicative functions, including rulings on evidentiary matters. There was, therefore, no violation of NRS 233B.122(1) [4] . Appellant has demonstrated no improper commingling of judicial and prosecutorial functions violative of due process, or of Nevada's Administrative Procedure Act.