State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court held that a defendant had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine a witness at a preliminary hearing when the defendant voluntarily waived the remainder of the hearing immediately after the witness's direct examination. The court concluded that admitting the unavailable witness's prior testimony at trial did not violate the Sixth Amendment and granted the State's petition for a writ of mandamus.

Holdings

1. A defendant who is offered an opportunity to cross-examine a preliminary-hearing witness, possesses discovery sufficient to conduct cross-examination, and voluntarily declines to cross-examine the witness has nevertheless received an adequate prior opportunity for cross-examination. Admission of the witness's prior testimony at trial therefore does not violate the Sixth Amendment merely because the defendant chose not to exercise the opportunity.
2. Mandamus was an appropriate remedy because the State could not appeal the district court's evidentiary ruling after a final criminal judgment and therefore lacked a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
3. The district court manifestly abused its discretion by denying admission of C.J.'s preliminary-hearing testimony on the ground that Baker lacked an adequate opportunity to cross-examine her.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a defendant has an adequate prior opportunity for cross-examination under the Sixth Amendment when the defendant was represented by counsel, had relevant discovery, was offered the opportunity to cross-examine a preliminary-hearing witness, but voluntarily waived the remainder of the hearing without conducting cross-examination.
2. Whether the district court manifestly abused its discretion by refusing to admit the unavailable witness's preliminary-hearing testimony at trial.
3. Whether the State could obtain mandamus relief because it lacked an adequate ordinary appellate remedy from the evidentiary ruling.

Disposition

writ_granted