Howard (Abdul) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

means unknown." However, NRS 173.075(2) provides that a criminal charge may allege that the means by which an offense was committed are unknown. See West v. State, 119 Nev. 410, 419, 75 P.3d 808, 814 (2003) ("The Legislature has also provided that an information must specify the means by which the charged offense was committed or allege that the means are unknown."); Simpson v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 88 Nev. 654, 658, 503 P.2d 1225, 1228 (1972) (observing that NRS 173.075(2) indicates that a charging document should "either include the means by which the offense was accomplished or show means are unknown"), see also Persons v. State, 714 S.W.2d 475, 478 (Tx. Ct. App. 1986) ("Where it is doubtful how death was caused, it may be alleged that it was done by some manner and means unknown to the grand jury"). Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court was required, as a matter of law, to grant his pretrial habeas petition on this grounc1. 2 See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court. (Armstrong), 127 Nev., Adv, Op. 84, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion). Second, petitioner argues that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was insufficient to establish the corpus delecti as to thefl murder and arson charges and that insufficient evidence supports an allegation that he sexually assaulted the victim with an unidentified

object. Our review of a pretrial probable cause determination through an original writ petition is disfavored, see Kuss man v. District Court, 96 Nev. 544, 545-46, 612 P.2d 679, 680 (1980), and petitioner has not demonstrated that his challenge to the probable cause determination fits the exceptions we have made for purely legal issues, see Ostman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 563, 565, 816 P.2d 458, 459-60 (1991); State v. Babayan, 106 Nev. 155, 174, 787 P.2d 805, 819-20 (1990). Having considered petitioner's arguments and concluded that relief is not warranted, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Footnotes

[2] To the extent petitioner argues that the amended information fails to provide adequate notice respecting the allegation of felony murder because it does not "advance the manner in which [the underlying felonies] connect to the death of [the victim]," we conclude that he has not shown that the district court manifestly abused its discretion by denying his pretrial petition on this basis. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e r5ap, Saitta Gibbofis Pidel24 tup' Pickering J. cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge Special Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e