STATE v. Larry Allen Arnold and Melissa Nicole Malmstedt, Real Parties in Interest. (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order severing trial. Petitioner has also filed an emergency motion for stay, to which real party in interest Larry Arnold has filed an opposition. Petitioner has in turn filed a reply.

A writ of mandamus is available to control a manifest abuse of discretion, Halverson v. Miller, 124 Nev. 484, 487, 186 P.3d 893, 896 (2008); see NRS 34.160, and a writ of prohibition is available to curb jurisdictional excess, NRS 34.330. Whether a petition for writ relief will be entertained rests within this court's sound discretion. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that this court's extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court manifestly abused its discretion, see Marshall v. State, 118 Nev. 642, 646, 56 P.3d 376, 378-79 (2002), or argued that the court exceeded its jurisdiction such that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion for stay is denied.