ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district courts order of reversal and remand to the municipal court in a criminal battery constituting domestic violence case.
This petition is a sequel to our decision in Andersen v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 135 Nev. 321, 322-24, 324, 448 P.3d 1120, 1122-23, 1124 (2019) (Andersen I), in which we held that a misdemeanor battery constituting domestic violence (BDV) charge under NRS 200.485(1)(a) is a “serious offense” that entitles the accused to a jury trial. Despite having secured a jury trial from this court in Andersen I, on returning to municipal court, petitioner Christopher Andersen challenged the municipal courts jurisdiction to hold that jury trial, arguing that it did not have statutory authority to do so. The municipal court agreed with Andersen that it lacked jurisdiction to hold a jury trial, but further held it could not transfer the case to justice court prior to trial, there being no final disposition or plea agreement. See NRS 5.0503(2) (prohibiting a municipal court from transferring a case absent a final disposition or plea). So, the municipal court concluded that it was in jurisdictional “limbo” and dismissed Andersens charges. The state appealed the dismissal to the district court, which reversed and remanded the case, again, to municipal court to hold a jury trial. Andersen now petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking this court to compel the district court to affirm the municipal courts order and dismiss the charges against him for lack of jurisdiction.
During the pendency of this action, the Nevada legislature passed, and the governor signed, A.B. 42, which expressly authorizes the municipal court to hold a jury trial for “any matter” within its jurisdiction, which includes a misdemeanor BDV offense. A.B. 42, 81st Leg. (Nev. 2021); see also NRS 5.050(2). The bill became effective on January 1, 2022 and applies to offenses committed before that date if they are “pending or otherwise unresolved on January 1, 2022.” A.B. 42, 81st Leg. Andersens case is unresolved as of the effective date; the bill therefore applies and empowers the municipal court to conduct a jury trial in this case.
We therefore conclude that the petition is moot. Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) (holding that later events may render a once-live controversy moot). The jury trial Andersen asked this court to mandate in Andersen I should proceed. Accordingly we,
ORDER the petition DENIED.