v.
Logan
CANDACE GITTINS, No. 70328 Appellant, VS.
KEITH A. LOGAN, A/K/A EUREKA
COUNTY SHERIFF; AND THE
FILED
JUSTICE COURT OF BEOWAWE JUN 1 5 2017 TOWNSHIP, COUNTY OF EUREKA, ELIZABETH A. BROWN STATE OF NEVADA, CLERK,9ULIPREME COURT By -1(?‘ - • (54.4 Respondents. DEPUTY CLERN
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court order denying appellant Candace Gittins' petition for writs of certiorari, mandamus, and/or prohibition. 1 Seventh Judicial District Court, Eureka County; Gary
Fairman, Judge. Gittins sought writ relief from various aspects of a justice court order resolving pretrial motions in a misdemeanor case against her. She now argues that the district court erred in denying relief based on her arguments that the vehicular manslaughter statute, NRS 484B.657, is unconstitutional and that she should be permitted to proffer evidence of contributory negligence. We disagree and affirm. A writ of certiorari may be granted to review the district court's order on appeal from the justice court where the district court rules on a statute's constitutionality. NRS 34.020(3); Zamarripa v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 103 Nev. 638, 640, 747 P.2d 1386, 1387 (1987). A (0) 1947A )Cci(o)
[*2]Blanton v. N. Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538, 541 (1989) (discussing whether offense is categorized as "petty"), and whether an offense is a public welfare offense turns on the class of the offense, see Holdridge v. United States, 282 F.2d 302, 309-10 (1960), not the characteristics of the offender. Gittins has failed to provide authority supporting her contention that the constitutionality of NRS 484B.657 should be assessed "as applied" to the frailties of a given defendant, and the State correctly notes that the statute has not yet been applied to Gittins's case as she has not yet been tried. As Gittins has failed to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying writ relief on this ground. Second, Gittins argues that the justice court improperly suppressed evidence of contributory negligence and thereby impaired her ability to present evidence in her defense. Contributory negligence is relevant to a defendant's liability only where it is "a superseding cause or the sole cause," Williams v. State, 118 Nev. 536, 550, 50 P.3d 1116, 1125 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted), and the justice court order permitted Gittins to make an offer of proof that an alleged negligent act constituted an intervening, superseding cause. Gittins thus has failed to show the justice court erred, and we decline Gittins' invitation to reconsider Williams. Moreover, this bar to evidence of contributory negligence does not inhibit Gittins from presenting her defense case because she may present evidence that she acted as an ordinarily prudent person would have in light of the preexisting conditions then present without presenting irrelevant evidence that others did not act with ordinary prudence. See MRS 193.018; Williams, 118 Nev. at 551, 50 P.3d at 1125-26. We conclude that Gittins has failed to show that
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A
[*3]extraordinary relief was warranted. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying writ relief on this ground. Haying considered Gittins' contentions and concluded that they do not warrant relief, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
/SA th.A.Z‘ , J. Hardesty itasar. Parraguirre
J. Stiglich cc: Hon. Gary Fairman, District Judge Dunlap & Laxalt Eureka County District Attorney Eureka County Clerk (0) 1947A ea :TR
[*4]