DAVIS v. SHERIFF, 93 Nev. 511 (1977)

569 P.2d 402

DAVID LEWIS DAVIS, APPELLANT, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, RESPONDENT.

No. 10113Supreme Court of Nevada.
September 22, 1977

Appeal from order denying pretrial petition for writ of habeas corpus, Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michael J. Wendell, J.

Morgan D. Harris, Public Defender, and Terrence M. Jackson, Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

Robert List, Attorney General, Carson City; George E. Holt, District Attorney, and Jerry T. McGimsey, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION
Per Curiam:

After being ordered to stand trial for robbery (NRS 200.380), and attempted robbery (NRS 200.380; NRS 208.070), David Lewis Davis petitioned for habeas corpus, the thrust of

Page 512

which contended the charges must be dismissed because, although requested, the magistrate refused to conduct a closed preliminary hearing. Habeas was denied and Davis has appealed.

Davis argues that under our decision in Azbill v. Fisher, 84 Nev. 414, 442 P.2d 916 (1968), a closed hearing was mandatory, if requested, thus we are compelled to reverse. Indeed, Azbill did so hold; however, the statute under which Azbill was decided (NRS 171.204) was subsequently amended and now provides that a closed hearing is discretionary.[1] See Stats. of Nev. 1969, ch. 364, p. 628. Here, Davis does not suggest that the magistrate’s refusal to exclude the witnesses and conduct a closed hearing constituted an abuse of discretion; therefore, we affirm.

[1] NRS 171.204 now provides:

“The magistrate may, upon the request of the defendant, exclude from the examination every person except his clerk, the prosecutor and his counsel, the attorney general, the district attorney of the county, the defendant and his counsel, the witness who is testifying, the officer having the defendant or a witness in his custody, and any other person whose presence is found by the magistrate to be necessary for the proper conduct of the examination.” (Emphasis added.)

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 569 P.2d 402

Recent Posts

KAPLAN v. DUTRA, 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 80 (2016)

No. 69065. 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 80 DAVID JOHN KAPLAN, Appellant, v. CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE,…

9 years ago

MAYO v. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 79 (2016)

No. 69566. 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 79 ANTHONY MAYO, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT…

9 years ago

PACIFIC WESTERN BANK v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 78 (2016)

No. 69048. 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 78 PACIFIC WESTERN BANK, A CALIFORNIA BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner,…

9 years ago

BOWMAN v. STATE, 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 74 (2016)

No. 67656. 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 74 FREDRICK LEWIS BOWMAN, A/K/A FREDERICK LEWIS BOWMAN, Appellant,…

9 years ago

WILLIAMS v. STATE, 118 Nev. 1159 (2002)

106 P.3d 1269 DARRYL WILLIAMS v. STATE. No. 39177.Supreme Court of Nevada. May 09, 2002.…

9 years ago

LARA v. DIST. CT., 122 Nev. 1697 (2006)

Lara v. District Court. No. 46284.Supreme Court of Nevada. March 24, 2006. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This…

9 years ago