NRS
172.241 Right of certain persons to appear before grand jury; notice of
consideration of indictment; withholding of notice; effect of inadequate
notice.
1. A person whose indictment the district
attorney intends to seek or the grand jury on its own motion intends to return,
but who has not been subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury, may testify
before the grand jury if the person requests to do so and executes a valid
waiver in writing of the person’s constitutional privilege against
self-incrimination.
2. A district attorney or a peace officer
shall serve reasonable notice upon a person whose indictment is being
considered by a grand jury unless the court determines that adequate cause
exists to withhold notice. The notice is adequate if it:
(a) Is given to the person, the person’s attorney
of record or an attorney who claims to represent the person and gives the
person not less than 5 judicial days to submit a request to testify to the
district attorney; and
(b) Advises the person that the person may
testify before the grand jury only if the person submits a written request to
the district attorney and includes an address where the district attorney may
send a notice of the date, time and place of the scheduled proceeding of the
grand jury.
3. The district attorney may apply to the
court for a determination that adequate cause exists to withhold notice if the
district attorney:
(a) Determines that the notice may result in the
flight of the person whose indictment is being considered, on the basis of:
(1) A previous failure of the person to
appear in matters arising out of the subject matter of the proposed indictment;
(2) The fact that the person is a fugitive
from justice arising from charges in another jurisdiction;
(3) Outstanding local warrants pending
against the person; or
(4) Any other objective factor;
(b) Determines that the notice may endanger the
life or property of other persons; or
(c) Is unable, after reasonable diligence, to
notify the person.
4. If a district attorney applies to the
court for a determination that adequate cause exists to withhold notice, the
court shall hold a closed hearing on the matter. Upon a finding of adequate
cause, the court may order that no notice be given.
5. If notice required to be served upon a
person pursuant to subsection 2 is not adequate, the person must be given the
opportunity to testify before the grand jury. If the person testifies pursuant
to this subsection, the grand jury must be instructed to deliberate again on
all the charges contained in the indictment following such testimony.
(Added to NRS by 1985,
554; A 1991,
1063; 1997,
188; 2015,
580)
Notes of Decisions
Solis-Ramirez v. Eighth Judicial District Court (1996)
nev · cites it 10×
“In 1991, the Nevada Legislature added the following provision to NRS 172.241: A district attorney shall give reasonable notice to a person whose indictment is being considered by a grand jury unless the court determines that adequate cause exists to withhold notice.”
Lisle v. State (1998)
nev · cites it 2×
“Two days later, on November 2, 1994, Lisle was given actual notice in justice court that the grand jury would be convening on November 3, 1994, to consider issuing an indictment against him. The next day, the grand jury proceedings did take place, and Lisle was indicted for…”
Daniels v. State (1998)
nev
“095(1)(d) and NRS 172.241, is violated when the prosecution does not provide the defense with “reasonable” notice of the impending proceeding.”
Sheriff v. Bright (1992)
nev · cites it 4×
“Nevada has liberally modified the traditionally secretive nature of grand jury proceedings through NRS 172.241, which extends to grand jury targets the right to testify before the grand jury.”
Gordon v. Ponticello (1994)
nev · cites it 2×
“145(2) which provides that “[i]f the district attorney is aware of any evidence which will explain away the charge, he [or she] shall submit it to the grand jury.”
Barngrover v. Fourth Judicial District Court (1999)
nev
“Deputy Attorney General Wayne Howie, counsel for NDOW, asked District Attorney Gary Woodbury to indicate whether or not employees of NDOW were targets of a criminal investigation pursuant to NRS 172.”
Johnston v. State (1991)
nev
“095(1) and NRS 172.241 provide a defendant with the right to testify in front of a grand jury before he or she is indicted, the defendant must receive reasonable notice of the grand jury proceeding.”
STATE VS. BEAUDION (EARL) (2015)
nev · cites it 34×
“: NRS 172.241 affords the target of a grand jury investigation the opportunity to testify before them unless, after holding "a closed hearing on the matter," the district court determines that adequate cause exists to withhold target notice.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.241(1) — 4 cases
Gordon v. Ponticello (1994)
nev
“145(2) which provides that “[i]f the district attorney is aware of any evidence which will explain away the charge, he [or she] shall submit it to the grand jury.”
STATE VS. BEAUDION (EARL) (2015)
nev
“: NRS 172.241 affords the target of a grand jury investigation the opportunity to testify before them unless, after holding "a closed hearing on the matter," the district court determines that adequate cause exists to withhold target notice.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.241(2) — 14 cases
Solis-Ramirez v. Eighth Judicial District Court (1996)
nev
“In 1991, the Nevada Legislature added the following provision to NRS 172.241: A district attorney shall give reasonable notice to a person whose indictment is being considered by a grand jury unless the court determines that adequate cause exists to withhold notice.”
Lisle v. State (1998)
nev
“Two days later, on November 2, 1994, Lisle was given actual notice in justice court that the grand jury would be convening on November 3, 1994, to consider issuing an indictment against him. The next day, the grand jury proceedings did take place, and Lisle was indicted for…”
Gordon v. Ponticello (1994)
nev
“145(2) which provides that “[i]f the district attorney is aware of any evidence which will explain away the charge, he [or she] shall submit it to the grand jury.”
Barngrover v. Fourth Judicial District Court (1999)
nev
“Deputy Attorney General Wayne Howie, counsel for NDOW, asked District Attorney Gary Woodbury to indicate whether or not employees of NDOW were targets of a criminal investigation pursuant to NRS 172.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.241(2)(a) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.241(2)(b) — 4 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.241(3) — 2 cases
STATE VS. BEAUDION (EARL) (2015)
nev
“: NRS 172.241 affords the target of a grand jury investigation the opportunity to testify before them unless, after holding "a closed hearing on the matter," the district court determines that adequate cause exists to withhold target notice.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.241(3)(b) — 2 cases
STATE VS. BEAUDION (EARL) (2015)
nev
“: NRS 172.241 affords the target of a grand jury investigation the opportunity to testify before them unless, after holding "a closed hearing on the matter," the district court determines that adequate cause exists to withhold target notice.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.241(4) — 2 cases
STATE VS. BEAUDION (EARL) (2015)
nev
“: NRS 172.241 affords the target of a grand jury investigation the opportunity to testify before them unless, after holding "a closed hearing on the matter," the district court determines that adequate cause exists to withhold target notice.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.241(5) — 3 cases
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.