The Court found that the district court did not err when it found no violation of NRS 172.145(2). The Court interpreted NRS 172.145(2), which creates a duty on district attorneys to submit evidence to a grand jury if they are “aware” it will “explain away the charge.” The Court determined that a district attorney must be “aware” evidence has exculpatory value before there is a duty to present the evidence to a grand jury. The district attorney is not obligated to present exculpatory evidence it possesses but does not recognize as exculpatory. In the case at issue, because the district attorney did not know moyamoya disease could explain a murder charge against Mayo, the district attorney did not need to present the evidence to the grand jury. The Court did not grant a pre-trial petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Velto, Alex, "Mayo v. Eigh. Jud, Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Nov. 23, 2016)" (2016). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1015.