NRS
171.083 No limitation for sexual assault or sex trafficking if written
report filed with law enforcement officer during period of limitation; effect
of disability on period of limitation.
1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 171.080, if, at any time during the
period of limitation prescribed in NRS
171.085 and 171.095, a victim of a
sexual assault, a person authorized to act on behalf of a victim of a sexual
assault, or a victim of sex trafficking or a person authorized to act on behalf
of a victim of sex trafficking, files with a law enforcement officer a written
report concerning the sexual assault or sex trafficking, the period of
limitation prescribed in NRS 171.085 and
171.095 is removed and there is no
limitation of the time within which a prosecution for the sexual assault or sex
trafficking must be commenced.
2. If a written report is filed with a law
enforcement officer pursuant to subsection 1, the law enforcement officer shall
provide a copy of the written report to the victim or the person authorized to
act on behalf of the victim.
3. If a victim of a sexual assault or sex
trafficking is under a disability during any part of the period of limitation
prescribed in NRS 171.085 and 171.095 and a written report concerning the
sexual assault or sex trafficking is not otherwise filed pursuant to subsection
1, the period during which the victim is under the disability must be excluded
from any calculation of the period of limitation prescribed in NRS 171.085 and 171.095.
4. For the purposes of this section, a
victim of a sexual assault or sex trafficking is under a disability if the
victim is insane, intellectually disabled, mentally incompetent or in a
medically comatose or vegetative state.
5. As used in this section, “law
enforcement officer” means:
(a) A prosecuting attorney;
(b) A sheriff of a county or the sheriff’s
deputy;
(c) An officer of a metropolitan police
department or a police department of an incorporated city; or
(d) Any other person upon whom some or all of the
powers of a peace officer are conferred pursuant to NRS 289.150 to 289.360, inclusive.
(Added to NRS by 1997,
890; A 2013,
683, 2418;
2019,
464)
Notes of Decisions
Ramos (gustavo) v. State, 2021 NV 74 (Nev. 2021).
· cites it 48× “The district court denied Ramos's motion, finding that there was no limitations period for the offense pursuant to NRS 171.083 because the victim's friend and son, who had discovered the victim's body and reported her death to the police, were authorized to act on the dead…”
McCallister (Donald) v. State (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 3× “2We note that NRS 171.083 applied to each count of sexual assault to sexual because the Legislature expressly intended the statute to apply te of assaults committed before its effective date where the statu see State limitations had not yet run.”
Mccallister (Donald) Vs. State, 477 P.3d 367 (Nev. 2020).
· cites it 2× “He argues that the victim never filed a written police report within the meaning of NRS 171.083(1) to remove the limitations period.”
Ramos (Gustavo) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2018).
“The petitioner has asserted a challenge to an issue of first impression that requires clarification before trial, not after trial, as to the tolling of the application of the statute of limitations for sexual assault, see NRS 171.083(1), to eliminate error and prejudice at trial…”
State Vs. Lose (Williams), 485 P.3d 214 (Nev. 2021).
“084(3); NRS 171.083(5). 3 in order to extend the statute of limitations periods in NRS 171.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.083(1) — 4 cases
Ramos (gustavo) v. State, 2021 NV 74 (Nev. 2021).
“The district court denied Ramos's motion, finding that there was no limitations period for the offense pursuant to NRS 171.083 because the victim's friend and son, who had discovered the victim's body and reported her death to the police, were authorized to act on the dead…”
McCallister (Donald) v. State (Nev. 2017).
“2We note that NRS 171.083 applied to each count of sexual assault to sexual because the Legislature expressly intended the statute to apply te of assaults committed before its effective date where the statu see State limitations had not yet run.”
Mccallister (Donald) Vs. State, 477 P.3d 367 (Nev. 2020).
“He argues that the victim never filed a written police report within the meaning of NRS 171.083(1) to remove the limitations period.”
Ramos (Gustavo) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2018).
“The petitioner has asserted a challenge to an issue of first impression that requires clarification before trial, not after trial, as to the tolling of the application of the statute of limitations for sexual assault, see NRS 171.083(1), to eliminate error and prejudice at trial…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.083(5) — 1 case
State Vs. Lose (Williams), 485 P.3d 214 (Nev. 2021).
“084(3); NRS 171.083(5). 3 in order to extend the statute of limitations periods in NRS 171.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.