NRS
172.225 Transcripts: Preparation; public record.
1. If an indictment has been found or
accusation presented against a defendant, the stenographic reporter shall
certify and file with the county clerk an original transcription of his or her
notes and a copy thereof and as many additional copies as there are defendants.
2. The reporter shall complete the
certification and filing within 10 days after the indictment has been found or
the accusation presented unless the court for good cause makes an order
extending the time.
3. The county clerk shall:
(a) Deliver a copy of the transcript so filed
with the county clerk to the district attorney immediately upon receipt
thereof;
(b) Retain one copy for use only by judges in
proceedings relating to the indictment or accusation; and
(c) Deliver a copy of the transcript to each
defendant who is in custody or has given bail or to the defendant’s attorney.
4. Any defendant to whom a copy has not
been delivered is entitled upon motion to a continuance of the defendant’s
arraignment until a date 10 days after the defendant actually receives a copy.
5. If several criminal charges against a
defendant are investigated on one investigation and thereafter separate
indictments are returned or accusations presented upon the several charges, the
delivery to the defendant or his or her attorney of one copy of the transcript
of the investigation is a compliance with this section as to all of the
indictments or accusations.
6. Upon the filing of such a transcript
with the county clerk, the transcript and any related physical evidence
exhibited to the grand jury become a matter of public record unless the court:
(a) Orders that the presentment or indictment
remain secret until the defendant is in custody or has been given bail; or
(b) Upon motion, orders the transcript and
evidence to remain secret until further order of the court.
(Added to NRS by 1967,
1410; A 1975,
910; 1983,
359)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1970–2014 · leading case:
Lisle v. State, 937 P.2d 473 (Nev. 1997).
Lisle v. State, 937 P.2d 473 (Nev. 1997).
· cites it 3× “Whether the defendant’s right to due process of law was violated when the trial court failed to continue the arraignment as statutorily mandated under NRS 172.225(4) Lisle contends that his right to due process of law was violated when the district court refused to grant his…”
Seim v. State, 590 P.2d 1152 (Nev. 1979).
· cites it 2× “NRS 172.225; Shelby v. District Court, supra .”
Barngrover v. Fourth Jud. Dist. Court, 979 P.2d 216 (Nev. 1999).
· cites it 3× “On May 15, 1997, after learning of the existence of the presentment, petitioners filed a motion for an order directing the grand jury court reporter to certify and file a transcript of the grand jury proceedings as required by NRS 172.225. The district court granted the motion,…”
Bonnenfant v. State, 469 P.2d 401 (Nev. 1970).
· cites it 2× “776 (1914). Subordinately, Bonnenfant urges that prosecutor misconduct denied him a fair trial.”
Logan v. Warden, 471 P.2d 249 (Nev. 1970).
“215, requiring a reporter to be present when a Grand Jury investigates criminal cases; and NRS 172.225, requiring that a copy of the Grand Jury proceedings be given to a defendant at least 10 days before arraignment.”
Sharpe (Raymond) v. State, No. 61584 (Nev. Apr. 8, 2014).
· cites it 3× “The State argues that the Due Process Clause does not require the district court to inform Sharpe of his right to review the grand jury transcripts before arraignment, and that the plain meaning of NRS 172.225 required Sharpe to make a motion for a continuance.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.225(4): 2 cases
Lisle v. State, 937 P.2d 473 (Nev. 1997).
“Whether the defendant’s right to due process of law was violated when the trial court failed to continue the arraignment as statutorily mandated under NRS 172.225(4) Lisle contends that his right to due process of law was violated when the district court refused to grant his…”
Sharpe (Raymond) v. State, No. 61584 (Nev. Apr. 8, 2014).
“The State argues that the Due Process Clause does not require the district court to inform Sharpe of his right to review the grand jury transcripts before arraignment, and that the plain meaning of NRS 172.225 required Sharpe to make a motion for a continuance.”
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.