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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.145

Defendant entitled to submit statement regarding preliminary hearing which grand jury must receive; grand jury required to hear and district attorney required to submit known evidence which will explain away charge; invitations and issuance of process for witnesses

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 172.145  Defendant entitled to submit statement regarding preliminary hearing which grand jury must receive; grand jury required to hear and district attorney required to submit known evidence which will explain away charge; invitations and issuance of process for witnesses.

      1.  The grand jury is not bound to hear evidence for the defendant, except that the defendant is entitled to submit a statement which the grand jury must receive providing whether a preliminary hearing was held concerning the matter and, if so, that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was considered insufficient to warrant holding the defendant for trial. It is their duty, however, to weigh all evidence submitted to them, and when they have reason to believe that other evidence within their reach will explain away the charge, they shall order that evidence to be produced, and for that purpose may require the district attorney to issue process for the witnesses.

      2.  If the district attorney is aware of any evidence which will explain away the charge, the district attorney shall submit it to the grand jury.

      3.  The grand jury may invite any person, without process, to appear before the grand jury to testify.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1409; A 1985, 555; 2011, 287)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1968–2024 · leading case: Ostman v. Eighth Judicial District Court
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ostman v. Eighth Judicial District Court (1991) nev · cites it 10× “See NRS 172.145(2). We agree. On October 13, 1989, an indictment was filed charging petitioner with ten counts of sexual assault and one count of coercion.”
Schuster v. Eighth Judicial District Court (2007) nev · cites it 7× “22 Absent explicit statutory authority, and in light of the traditional view of the grand jury as an investigative, accusatory body, rather than an adjudicative one, this court will not construe NRS 172.145 to include such a duty. CONCLUSION We have previously expressed an…”
Kirksey v. State (1996) nev · cites it 2× “15 NRS 172.145(2) requires that “[i]f the district attorney is aware of any evidence which will explain away the charge, he shall submit it to the grand jury.”
State v. Babayan (1990) nev · cites it 3× “In granting respondent Babayan’s motion to dismiss, the district court found that substantial exculpatory evidence was known to the District Attorney’s Office, but that the prosecutors failed to present it to the grand jury.”
Sheriff v. Burcham (2008) nev · cites it 2× “[38] NRS 172.145(1). [39] Hodes, 96 Nev. at 186 , 606 P.”
King v. State (2000) nev · cites it 3× “King contends that the State failed to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury contrary to NRS 172.145. 9 More specifically, King contends that the State failed to present statements of four persons who were inside the residence at the time the search warrant was executed.”
Lay v. State (1994) nev · cites it 2× “Specifically, Lay claims that Ricky Lee, Newman, Stewart and Haynes all told police investigators that they could not identify the shooter, but that these same witnesses nevertheless identified Lay’s photograph at the grand jury proceeding.”
Seim v. State (1979) nev · cites it 2× “NRS 172.145; Hyler v. Sheriff, supra . Until an indictment is issued, a shroud of secrecy keeps the proceedings confidential, with logical statutory exceptions (NRS 172.”
Lane v. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County (1988) nev · cites it 3× “” Finally, we reject petitioner’s contention that his deputy was required to present such evidence by virtue of NRS 172.145 because of its exculpatory nature.”
Sheriff, Clark County v. Frank (1987) nev · cites it 3× “THE LAW NRS 172.145(2) provides that “[i]f the district attorney is aware of any evidence which will explain away the charge,- he shall submit it to the grand jury.”
Moran v. Schwarz (1992) nev · cites it 4× “NRS 172.145 requires the grand jury to hear, and the district attorney to submit, known evidence which will explain away the charge.”
Hyler v. SHERIFF, CLARK CTY. (1977) nev · cites it 2× “Further, we have not been directed to nor have we been able to find any demonstrative facts establishing the existence of *564 exculpatory evidence which should have been brought to the grand jury’s attention pursuant to NRS 172.145. 1 3. The third contention is without merit…”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.145(1) — 3 cases
Sheriff v. Burcham (2008) nev “[38] NRS 172.145(1). [39] Hodes, 96 Nev. at 186 , 606 P.”
Schuster v. Eighth Judicial District Court (2007) nev “22 Absent explicit statutory authority, and in light of the traditional view of the grand jury as an investigative, accusatory body, rather than an adjudicative one, this court will not construe NRS 172.145 to include such a duty. CONCLUSION We have previously expressed an…”
State v. Babayan (1990) nev “In granting respondent Babayan’s motion to dismiss, the district court found that substantial exculpatory evidence was known to the District Attorney’s Office, but that the prosecutors failed to present it to the grand jury.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.145(2) — 25 cases
Ostman v. Eighth Judicial District Court (1991) nev “See NRS 172.145(2). We agree. On October 13, 1989, an indictment was filed charging petitioner with ten counts of sexual assault and one count of coercion.”
Schuster v. Eighth Judicial District Court (2007) nev “22 Absent explicit statutory authority, and in light of the traditional view of the grand jury as an investigative, accusatory body, rather than an adjudicative one, this court will not construe NRS 172.145 to include such a duty. CONCLUSION We have previously expressed an…”
Kirksey v. State (1996) nev “15 NRS 172.145(2) requires that “[i]f the district attorney is aware of any evidence which will explain away the charge, he shall submit it to the grand jury.”
State v. Babayan (1990) nev “In granting respondent Babayan’s motion to dismiss, the district court found that substantial exculpatory evidence was known to the District Attorney’s Office, but that the prosecutors failed to present it to the grand jury.”
Sheriff, Clark County v. Frank (1987) nev “THE LAW NRS 172.145(2) provides that “[i]f the district attorney is aware of any evidence which will explain away the charge,- he shall submit it to the grand jury.”
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.