Davis v. Sheriff, Clark County
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Dickinson Newspapers, Inc. v. Jorgensen (N.D. 1983)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Riverside (Supreme Court of the United States 1986)
- Chittenden v. Just. Ct. of Pahrump Twp. (Nev. Ct. App. 2024)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION
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 *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.
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.)
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.