Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 172 - PROCEEDINGS AFTER COMMITMENT AND BEFORE INDICTMENT

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.095

Charges to be given to grand jury by court; district attorney to inform grand jury of specific elements of public offense considered as basis of indictment

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 172.095  Charges to be given to grand jury by court; district attorney to inform grand jury of specific elements of public offense considered as basis of indictment.

      1.  The grand jury being impaneled and sworn, must be charged by the court. In doing so, the court shall:

      (a) Give the grand jurors such information as is required by law and any other information it deems proper regarding their duties and any charges for public offenses returned to the court or likely to come before the grand jury.

      (b) Inform the grand jurors of the provisions of NRS 172.245 and the penalties for its violation.

      (c) Give each regular and alternate grand juror a copy of the charges.

      (d) Inform the grand jurors that the failure of a person to exercise the right to testify as provided in NRS 172.241 must not be considered in their decision of whether or not to return an indictment.

      2.  Before seeking an indictment, or a series of similar indictments, the district attorney shall inform the grand jurors of the specific elements of any public offense which they may consider as the basis of the indictment or indictments.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1408; A 1985, 554, 1028)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Clay v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clay v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark (2013) nev · cites it 19× “” NRS 172.095(2). In this original writ proceeding, we consider whether the district attorney violates this requirement when he or she seeks an indictment for child abuse or neglect under NRS 200.”
Sheriff, Humboldt County v. Marcum (1989) nev · cites it 4× “*826 We note that although both NRS 172.095(1)(d) 1 and NRS 172.241 2 give a defendant the right to testify before a grand jury, both statutes are silent regarding a defendant’s right to have notice of the grand jury proceedings at which he may be indicted.”
Gier v. Ninth Judicial District Court (1990) nev · cites it 3× “In Marcum , in interpreting two existing statutes, NRS 172.095(1)(d) and NRS 172.241, 2 we did not simply clarify an existing rule, we announced an altogether new rule.”
Rugamas v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark (2013) nev · cites it 2× “130), charges the grand jury as to its authorities and responsibilities (NRS 172.095), . . . determines when a grand jury is to be discharged, recessed (NRS 6.”
Daniels v. State (1998) nev “In Marcum , we held that the right of a defendant to testify on his own behalf at a grand jury proceeding prior to his indictment, as provided by NRS 172.095(1)(d) and NRS 172.241, is violated when the prosecution does not provide the defense with “reasonable” notice of the…”
Schuster v. Eighth Judicial District Court (2007) nev “” NRS 172.095(1)(a) provides that the grand jury “must be charged by the court” and that the court shall provide “the grand jurors such information as is required by law and any other information it deems proper regarding their duties and any charges for public offenses returned…”
In Re the Report of the Washoe County Grand Jury (1979) nev · cites it 2× “130), charges the grand jury as to its authorities and responsibilities (NRS 172.095), and determines when a grand jury is to be discharged, recessed (NRS 6.”
Lane v. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County (1988) nev “130), charges the grand jury as to its authorities and responsibilities (NRS 172.095), and determines when a grand jury is to be discharged, recessed (NRS 6.”
Gordon v. Eighth Judicial District Court (1996) nev “NRS 172.095(2) provides that “[bjefore seeking an indictment .”
Sheriff, Clark County v. Keeney (1990) nev “4 Additionally, we note that, pursuant to NRS 172.095(1)(d), the district court presumably instructed the grand jurors at the time they were impaneled *220 that “the failure of a person to exercise his right to testify .”
Marshall v. State (1994) nev “” NRS 172.095(l)(d). Appellant presented *1332 no evidence supporting his contention that the grand jury was not properly instructed.”
CHASING HORSE (NATHAN) v. DIST. CT. (STATE) (2024) nev · cites it 6× “We conclude that it is error for the State to give the grand jury an instruction that is unsupported by the evidence and does not address a necessary element of an offense under NRS 172.095(2). In this case, the State exceeded its statutory duty and gave the grand jury an…”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.095(1) — 2 cases
Johnston v. State (1991) nev
Williams v. Baca (2022) nvd
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.095(1)(a) — 1 case
Schuster v. Eighth Judicial District Court (2007) nev “” NRS 172.095(1)(a) provides that the grand jury “must be charged by the court” and that the court shall provide “the grand jurors such information as is required by law and any other information it deems proper regarding their duties and any charges for public offenses returned…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.095(1)(d) — 6 cases
Sheriff, Humboldt County v. Marcum (1989) nev “*826 We note that although both NRS 172.095(1)(d) 1 and NRS 172.241 2 give a defendant the right to testify before a grand jury, both statutes are silent regarding a defendant’s right to have notice of the grand jury proceedings at which he may be indicted.”
Gier v. Ninth Judicial District Court (1990) nev “In Marcum , in interpreting two existing statutes, NRS 172.095(1)(d) and NRS 172.241, 2 we did not simply clarify an existing rule, we announced an altogether new rule.”
Daniels v. State (1998) nev “In Marcum , we held that the right of a defendant to testify on his own behalf at a grand jury proceeding prior to his indictment, as provided by NRS 172.095(1)(d) and NRS 172.241, is violated when the prosecution does not provide the defense with “reasonable” notice of the…”
Sheriff, Clark County v. Keeney (1990) nev “4 Additionally, we note that, pursuant to NRS 172.095(1)(d), the district court presumably instructed the grand jurors at the time they were impaneled *220 that “the failure of a person to exercise his right to testify .”
MCNAMARA (JAMES) VS. STATE (2016) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.095(2) — 12 cases
Clay v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark (2013) nev “” NRS 172.095(2). In this original writ proceeding, we consider whether the district attorney violates this requirement when he or she seeks an indictment for child abuse or neglect under NRS 200.”
Rugamas v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark (2013) nev “130), charges the grand jury as to its authorities and responsibilities (NRS 172.095), . . . determines when a grand jury is to be discharged, recessed (NRS 6.”
Gordon v. Eighth Judicial District Court (1996) nev “NRS 172.095(2) provides that “[bjefore seeking an indictment .”
CHASING HORSE (NATHAN) v. DIST. CT. (STATE) (2024) nev “We conclude that it is error for the State to give the grand jury an instruction that is unsupported by the evidence and does not address a necessary element of an offense under NRS 172.095(2). In this case, the State exceeded its statutory duty and gave the grand jury an…”
Clay v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (2013) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.095(l)(d) — 2 cases
Sheriff, Humboldt County v. Marcum (1989) nev “*826 We note that although both NRS 172.095(1)(d) 1 and NRS 172.241 2 give a defendant the right to testify before a grand jury, both statutes are silent regarding a defendant’s right to have notice of the grand jury proceedings at which he may be indicted.”
Marshall v. State (1994) nev “” NRS 172.095(l)(d). Appellant presented *1332 no evidence supporting his contention that the grand jury was not properly instructed.”
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.