Opinion ID: 2635680
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Nevada's Uniform Act and subpoenas duces tecum

Text: While the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses From Without a State in Criminal Proceedings clearly allows adopting jurisdictions to compel material witness[es] from other jurisdictions to testify in a criminal prosecution or before a grand jury, see, e.g., NRS 174.425(1); see also NRS 174.405(2); NRS 174.415, [5] jurisdictions have questioned whether the Uniform Act permits courts to compel the production of books and records via subpoenas duces tecum. Jay M. Zitter, J.D., Annotation, Availability under Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings of Subpoena duces tecum, 7 A.L.R.4th 836 (1981). Although Nevada and several other jurisdictions have included within their acts a statute that instructs courts to interpret and construe the Uniform Act to make uniform the law of the states which enact [it], see NRS 174.445; Fla. Stat. Ann. § 942.05 (West 2006); Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 9-305 (LexisNexis 2006); Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 233, § 13D (LexisNexis 2000); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 767.95 (West 2000); N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law § 640.10 (McKinney 1995); Wash. Rev.Code Ann. § 10.55.110 (West 2002), jurisdictions have reached different conclusions on the issue of whether the Uniform Act extends to subpoenas duces tecum for books and records. The issue arises because the Uniform Act speaks in terms of an out-of-state witness receiving a summons. NRS 174.425(2); NRS 174.435. Summons is defined in NRS 174.405(2) to include a subpoena, order or other notice requiring the appearance of a witness. A minority of courts have read the reference to requiring the appearance of a witness as limiting subpoena to subpoenas for testimony not documents, reasoning that, had the Legislature intended to include subpoenas duces tecum, it would have drafted the statute to include them. In re Grothe, 59 Ill.App.2d 1, 208 N.E.2d 581, 586 (1965) (quoting Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 38, § 156-1, now 725 111. Comp. Stat. Ann. 220/1 (West 2008)). [6] On the other hand, courts that construe the Uniform Act liberally, which represent the majority view, have concluded that it is reasonable to afford protection to reach documents as well as witnesses, reasoning that the term subpoena can include documents. See, e.g., Application of Grand Jury of State of N.Y., 8 Mass.App.Ct. 760, 397 N.E.2d 686, 689 (1979) (reasoning that the meaning of the term `sub poena' ... certainly ha[s] no relation whatever to process [but that] [c]ustom and tradition have, however, made the words synonymous with process of a certain kind and that it would be irrational to conclude that the term excludes either subpoena duces tecum or subpoena ad testificandum); In re Saperstein, 30 N.J.Super. 373, 104 A.2d 842, 846 (App.Div.1954) (In view of ... the fact that the uniform act was enacted in aid of comity between states to assist the orderly and effectual administration of justice and prosecution of criminal conduct, we conclude that the Legislature ... was aware of the case law holding the term `subpoena' to embrace `subpoena duces tecum' and had it intended to exclude such subpoenas from the act, it would have done so.) This court briefly discussed the issue in Atlantic Commercial v. Boyles, 103 Nev. 35, 732 P.2d 1360 (1987), abrogated on other grounds by Executive Mgmt. v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 118 Nev. 46, 38 P.3d 872 (2002). The Boyles court addressed whether a foreign court could issue a subpoena duces tecum for a Nevada bank to produce a corporation's Nevada bank records without obtaining jurisdiction in Nevada. Id. at 37, 732 P.2d at 1362. This court stated that Nevada's Uniform Act provides a method whereby jurisdiction to serve a subpoena duces tecum issued by a court in a foreign jurisdiction may be properly obtained through a Nevada court. Id. at 39, 732 P.2d at 1363. This court went on to state that although [t]he language of NRS 174.415 [NRS 174.425's counterpart for summoning a witness in this State to appear in another state] specifically provides only for subpoenas requesting witnesses for out-of-state criminal proceedings, it arguably would apply to a subpoena duces tecum for production of documents. Id. In concluding that the foreign court lacked jurisdiction, this court held that if the foreign court still wanted to obtain the party's bank records that were located in Nevada, it must utilize Nevada's Uniform Act to do so. Id. We reaffirm the holding in Boyles. Remaining in line with the majority of jurisdictions, we reiterate that Nevada's Uniform Act extends to subpoenas duces tecum. Like the appeals court of Massachusetts, we are convinced that the term subpoena, as used in NRS 174.405(2), includes subpoenas duces tecum. While NRS 174.425 sets forth the procedures by which a citizen of Nevada can summon a witness from another jurisdiction to testify in a criminal proceeding, NRS 174.405(2) defines summons as including a  subpoena, order or other notice requiring the appearance of a witness. (Emphasis added.) Because the ordinary meaning of subpoena includes both a subpoena ad testificandum and a subpoena duces tecum, [7] see Black's Law Dictionary 1467 (8th ed.2004), we determine, as indicated in Boyles, that it is reasonable to extend NRS 174.425(1) to requests for material out-ofstate books and records that have an ancillary request for the appearance of a witness. In this case, Wyman seeks the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum for Dunn's out-of-state mental health records. At oral argument, Wyman specified that she sought the appearance of a custodian of records attendant to Dunn's records. Because Wyman sought out-of-state records via a subpoena duces tecum that had an ancillary request for the appearance of an out-of-state witness, we conclude that Wyman's certificate of materiality request fell within the purview of Nevada's Uniform Act.