15-year-old boy. The State sought to amend the indictment to strike the premeditation-and-deliberation theory of first-degree murder, leaving only a felony-murder theory of liability. Over the defense's objection, the district court granted the State's motion. This writ petition followed.

Petitioners argue that striking the premeditation-and- deliberation theory substantively altered the indictment in violation of his due process rights and therefore the State had no authority to alter the indictment. However, NRS 173.095(1) "permit[s] an indictment or information to be amended at any time before verdict or finding if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced." The removal of a theory of liability does not alter the offense—petitioners are still charged with first-degree murder. Accordingly, the State was within its authority to strike the premeditation-and-deliberation theory alleged in the murder charge and doing so does not violate petitioners' due process rights. Further, petitioners have not demonstrated that allowing the amendment will unfairly prejudice their ability to defend against the murder charge.

Because petitioners have not shown that the district court manifestly abused its discretion by allowing the State to amend the indictment, see State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 84,

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A e 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining manifest abuse of discretion and arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion in context of mandamus), we ORDER the petition DENIED. 2

Parraguirre

Douglas

CHERRY, J., concurring: I would not intervene at this time. I therefore concur.

J.

cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge Christiansen Law Offices Special Public Defender Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

2 We lift the stay of the trial imposed on May 29, 2015.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) )947A .4eljo