Lowe (Lamalsikou) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Lowe (Lamalsikou) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedDecember 15, 2016

Docket71354

StatusUnpublished

This text of Lowe (Lamalsikou) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Lowe (Lamalsikou) 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

Lowe (Lamalsikou) v. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LAMALSIKOU.LOWE, No. 71354 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, ALE IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE MICHELLE DEC 1 5 2016 LEAVITT, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This petition for a writ of certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition asks this court to dismiss the charges against petitioner because the State allegedly failed to preserve and/or produce exculpatory and material evidence. We conclude that petitioner fails to demonstrate that this court's pretrial intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) ("Petitioner[ ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating the extraordinary relief is warranted."); Salaiscooper v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 117 Nev. 892, 902, 34 P.3d 509, 516 (2001) ("[G]enerally, and except in extraordinary circumstances warranting interlocutory intervention, we will not consider the legal issues presented in a criminal case prior to entry of the judgment of conviction."); Daniels v. State, 114 Nev. 261, 267, 956 P.2d 111, 115 (1998) ("The State's failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence may result in dismissal of the charges if the defendant can show bad faith or connivance on the part of the government or that he was prejudiced by

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A ctIDD the loss of the evidence." (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Alternatively, petitioner asks that the Clark County District Attorney's office be disqualified. We conclude that petitioner fails to demonstrate that disqualification of the entire office is warranted. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Zogheib), 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 18, 321 P.3d 882, 886 (2014). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

J.

Gibbons

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Gary A. Modafferi Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LAMALSIKOU.LOWE, No. 71354 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, ALE IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE MICHELLE DEC 1 5 2016 LEAVITT, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This petition for a writ of certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition asks this court to dismiss the charges against petitioner because the State allegedly failed to preserve and/or produce exculpatory and material evidence. We conclude that petitioner fails to demonstrate that this court's pretrial intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) ("Petitioner[ ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating the extraordinary relief is warranted."); Salaiscooper v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 117 Nev. 892, 902, 34 P.3d 509, 516 (2001) ("[G]enerally, and except in extraordinary circumstances warranting interlocutory intervention, we will not consider the legal issues presented in a criminal case prior to entry of the judgment of conviction."); Daniels v. State, 114 Nev. 261, 267, 956 P.2d 111, 115 (1998) ("The State's failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence may result in dismissal of the charges if the defendant can show bad faith or connivance on the part of the government or that he was prejudiced by

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A ctIDD the loss of the evidence." (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Alternatively, petitioner asks that the Clark County District Attorney's office be disqualified. We conclude that petitioner fails to demonstrate that disqualification of the entire office is warranted. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Zogheib), 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 18, 321 P.3d 882, 886 (2014). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

J.

Gibbons

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Gary A. Modafferi Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lowe (Lamalsikou) v. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowe-lamalsikou-v-dist-ct-state-nev-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack