NRS
171.204 Exclusion of persons; exceptions.
1. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 2, the magistrate may, if good cause is shown and upon the request
of any party or on the magistrate’s own motion, exclude from the examination
every person except:
(a) The magistrate’s clerk;
(b) The Attorney General;
(c) The prosecuting attorney;
(d) An investigating officer, after the
investigating officer has testified as a prosecuting witness and the
investigating officer’s cross-examination has been completed;
(e) Any counsel for the victim;
(f) The victim, after the victim has testified as
a prosecuting witness and the victim’s cross-examination has been completed;
(g) The defendant and the defendant’s counsel;
(h) The witness who is testifying;
(i) The officer having the defendant or a witness
in the officer’s custody;
(j) An attendant to a witness designated pursuant
to NRS 178.571; and
(k) Any other person whose presence is found by
the magistrate to be necessary for the proper conduct of the examination.
2. A person who is called as a witness
primarily for the purpose of identifying the victim may not be excluded from
the examination except in the discretion of the magistrate.
3. As used in this section, “victim”
includes any person described in NRS 178.569.
(Added to NRS by 1967,
1407; A 1969,
628; 1983,
891; 1995,
72, 996;
1997,
72, 513)
Notes of Decisions
Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979).
· cites it 2× “§ 46-10-201 (1978); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.204 (1975); N. D. Cent.”
Azbill v. Fisher, 442 P.2d 916 (Nev. 1968).
· cites it 5× “At the hearing he invoked the exclusionary rule, NRS 171.204, but the magistrate refused to exclude a representative of the press.”
State v. Williams, 459 A.2d 641 (N.J. 1983).
“Stat.Ann. § 22-109 (Repl.1962); Cal.Penal Code § 868 (West 1982); Ga.”
Davis v. Sheriff, Clark Cnty., 569 P.2d 402 (Nev. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Here, Davis does not suggest that the magistrate’s refusal to exclude the witnesses and conduct a closed hearing constituted an abuse of discretion; therefore, we affirm.”
Romo v. Keplinger, 978 P.2d 964 (Nev. 1999).
“This section does not authorize the exclusion of: (a) A party who is a natural person; (b) An officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney; (c) A person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the…”
Orduna v. Garrett (D. Nev. 2023).
· cites it 2× “155(1), (2)(d); NRS § 171.204(1)(c). 25 Because an objection to the prosecutor testifying based on the exclusionary rule would 26 have been futile, Orduna fails to demonstrate that his post-plea counsel was deficient.”
Bishop v. Sheriff, 502 P.2d 1098 (Nev. 1972).
· cites it 2× “At the first hearing, the magistrate declined appellant’s request for a closed hearing, apparently believing that the 1969 legislative amendment to NRS 171.204 granted the magistrate discretion in the matter.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.204(1)(c): 1 case
Orduna v. Garrett (D. Nev. 2023).
“155(1), (2)(d); NRS § 171.204(1)(c). 25 Because an objection to the prosecutor testifying based on the exclusionary rule would 26 have been futile, Orduna fails to demonstrate that his post-plea counsel was deficient.”
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.