Gazlay (Steven) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedMay 18, 2015
Docket67556
StatusUnpublished

This text of Gazlay (Steven) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Gazlay (Steven) v. Dist. Ct. (State)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gazlay (Steven) v. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2015).

Opinion

discretion, Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818

P.2d 849, 851 (1991), and a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating

that extraordinary relief is warranted, Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,

120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Gazlay argues that the State failed to present exculpatory

evidence to the grand jury and that unrelated and irrelevant testimony

was introduced at the grand jury proceeding. "Dismissal of an indictment

on the basis of governmental misconduct is an extreme sanction that

should be utilized infrequently." Lay v. State, 110 Nev. 1189, 1198, 886

P.2d 448, 454 (1994). The defendant must show substantial prejudice, or a

reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different absent

the misconduct, in order to warrant dismissal of an indictment. Id.; see

also Sheriff v. Keeney, 106 Nev. 213, 216, 791 P.2d 55, 57 (1990).

We conclude that extraordinary relief is not warranted.

Gazlay fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the grand jury

would not have found probable cause existed to indict him had the letter

been introduced or had the unrelated testimony been omitted. Therefore,

Gazlay fails to demonstrate that the district court manifestly abused its

discretion by denying his pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See

Rugamas v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 46, 30 P.3d

887, 895-96 (2013) (a district court manifestly abuses its discretion by

denying a pretrial habeas petition when there is no legal evidence to

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A satisfy the elements of the charged offenses in a challenged indictment).

Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pairaguirre

fACS u-k Douglas Cherry

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Steven Christopher Gazlay Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A .0

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court
818 P.2d 849 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1991)
Sheriff, Clark County v. Keeney
791 P.2d 55 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1990)
Lay v. State
886 P.2d 448 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1994)
In the Interest of Doe
30 P.3d 878 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gazlay (Steven) v. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gazlay-steven-v-dist-ct-state-nev-2015.