Nevada high court reverses decision to throw out attempted murder case

District Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez dismissed the charges against Rigdell Farmer more than a year ago after prosecutors asked to briefly delay his trial because they needed additional time to call witnesses in the case.

The high court wrote in a six-page order that Gonzalez “abused (her) discretion” and should not have thrown out the case to punish prosecutors because they were not ready for trial.

“A district court may appropriately dismiss charges against a criminal defendant based on prosecutorial misconduct, but such a sanction is generally limited to misconduct that prejudices a defendant at a constitutional level,” the justices wrote in the order handed down Thursday. “The district court did not consider whether the witnesses’ tardiness prejudiced the defendant, and nothing in the record indicates that it did, nor did the court consider the significant public interests impacted by the dismissal of charges… A less severe sanction could have appropriately addressed the State’s failure, but no such lesser sanctions were even considered.”

Gonzalez had dismissed the case just after jurors heard opening statements in February 2020, and Chief Deputy District Attorney Jake Villani told the judge that the shooting victim, whom he expected to testify first, was a homeless heroin addict who was running late. Two other witnesses, expected to testify through a video conference, also were unavailable at the start of the trial, the prosecutor said.

Prosecutors had alleged that Farmer shot the victim in the chest and leg during a drug deal gone awry near the intersection of Tropicana Avenue and Rainbow Boulevard in August. Deputy public defenders Steven Lisk and Kara Simmons had argued that Farmer was acting in self-defense and that Dennis Avansdergregoriam, a would-be robber, was shot during a struggle over a gun.

In the same decision ordering a new trial for the 30-year-old Farmer, six justices in a unanimous decision also wrote that they did not condone the prosecutors’ actions.

“When the State affirms it is ready to begin trial, it has an obligation to ensure its witnesses are ready and available,” the order handed down Thursday stated. “When faced with unavailable witnesses, the State has alternative rule-based options, such as requesting a continuance, as opposed to insisting that the defendant, defense counsel, defense witnesses, the jury, and the court, which has other matters on its calendar, wait for the State’s preferred witnesses to appear.”

Justice Douglas Herndon recused himself from weighing in on the case.

Farmer’s attorneys expected to take the case to trial again.

“We’re disappointed in the court’s ruling,” Lisk said. “But, as we have all along, we are maintaining our client’s innocence, and if given an opportunity we will present that to the jury, and we expect to be able to produce a not guilty verdict at the trial.”

Prosecutors declined to comment on the high court’s decision.

Contact David Ferrara at dferrara@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-1039. Follow @randompoker on Twitter.