NIKOS DEWAYNE SHARP v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court's oral ruling, made mid-trial, precluding the defense from presenting expert witness testimony, as well as a ruling precluding evidence that the named victim did not disclose sexual abuse during trauma therapy sessions.

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted in this matter. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). In particular, this court typically declines to consider writ petitions raising evidentiary issues addressed to the district court's discretion. See Williams v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 127 Nev. 518, 525, 262 P.3d 360, 365 (2011); Payne v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 97 Nev. 228, 229, 626 P.2d 1278, 1279 (1981), overruled on other grounds by Pan, 120 Nev. 222, 88 P.3d 840. Further, trial likely will be soon concluded in the underlying case, and petitioner may raise these issues on appeal from any conviction. See NRS 34.170 (a writ of mandamus may issue only when no plain, adequate, and speedy legal remedy exists); Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (recognizing that “the right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pickering, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.