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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.255

Finding and return of presentment or indictment; effect of failure to indict

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 172.255  Finding and return of presentment or indictment; effect of failure to indict.

      1.  A presentment or indictment may be found only upon the concurrence of 12 or more jurors.

      2.  The jurors shall vote separately on each person and each count included in a presentment or indictment.

      3.  The presentment or indictment must be returned by the grand jury to a judge in open court or, in the absence of the judge, to the clerk of the court in open court, who shall determine that 12 or more jurors concurred in finding a presentment or indictment. If the defendant has been held to answer and 12 jurors do not concur in finding a presentment or indictment, the foreman shall so report to the court in writing forthwith.

      4.  The failure to indict does not prevent the same charge from being again submitted to a grand jury if resubmission is approved by the court.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1411; A 1971, 208; 1985, 1030)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1978–2020 · leading case: Lane v. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lane v. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County (1988) nev · cites it 3× “; NRS 172.255, 172.285), determines when a grand jury shall be impanelled (NRS 6.”
Gordon v. Eighth Judicial District Court (1996) nev · cites it 4× “See NRS 172.255. Id. (Emphasis added). We hold that an indictment should not be dismissed if the requisite number of jurors are “informed,” i.”
Sheriff, Clark County v. Warner (1996) nev · cites it 2× “NRS 172.255(4). Moreover, at the third grand jury hearing, the state provided Warner with certain procedural protections including permitting Warner to testify and providing the grand jurors with known exculpatory evidence such as transcript testimony of Warner's experts who…”
In Re the Report of the Washoe County Grand Jury (1979) nev · cites it 2× “095), and determines when a grand jury is to be discharged, recessed (NRS 6.”
Commonwealth v. McCravy (2000) mass “§ 29-1416 (2) (1995); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.255 (4) (1999); N.M.”
State v. Hancock (1998) nev · cites it 2× “) In the instant case, the proposed amendments were more than clerical and would have materially altered the criminal indictment. We conclude that were the State to be granted leave to amend the indictment so as to add previously alternately pleaded offenses as separate counts,…”
Rugamas v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark (2013) nev “; NRS 172.255; NRS 172.285), determines when a grand jury shall be impanelled (NRS 6.”
State v. Boueri (1983) nev “See NRS 172.255; Constancio v. Sheriff, 94 Nev.”
Sheriff, Clark County v. Keeney (1990) nev “Rather, it is clear from the record that the judge issued the writ and dismissed the initial indictment solely because the state had failed to alleviate his concerns about the technical sufficiency of the true bill returned by the grand jury.”
Barngrover v. Fourth Judicial District Court (1999) nev “The statutes do not contemplate, and the law does not require, a pre-filing review of a presentment by the district court.”
Johnston v. State (1991) nev “See NRS 172.255. Finally, Johnston asserts that the State failed to present substantial evidence that the ephedrine he sold was not compounded with ingredients for over-the-counter sale.”
Gibson v. State (1980) nev “He asserts that the indictment was returned without the presence of the district court judge or the clerk of the court as required by NRS 172.255(1); that the record fails to show that the grand jurors were sworn; that the prosecutor failed to solicit questions from the grand…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.255(1) — 4 cases
State v. Hancock (1998) nev “) In the instant case, the proposed amendments were more than clerical and would have materially altered the criminal indictment. We conclude that were the State to be granted leave to amend the indictment so as to add previously alternately pleaded offenses as separate counts,…”
Gordon v. Eighth Judicial District Court (1996) nev “See NRS 172.255. Id. (Emphasis added). We hold that an indictment should not be dismissed if the requisite number of jurors are “informed,” i.”
Gibson v. State (1980) nev “He asserts that the indictment was returned without the presence of the district court judge or the clerk of the court as required by NRS 172.255(1); that the record fails to show that the grand jurors were sworn; that the prosecutor failed to solicit questions from the grand…”
Constancio v. Sheriff (1978) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.255(2) — 1 case
Gordon v. Eighth Judicial District Court (1996) nev “See NRS 172.255. Id. (Emphasis added). We hold that an indictment should not be dismissed if the requisite number of jurors are “informed,” i.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.255(3) — 1 case
Barngrover v. Fourth Judicial District Court (1999) nev “The statutes do not contemplate, and the law does not require, a pre-filing review of a presentment by the district court.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 172.255(4) — 3 cases
Lane v. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County (1988) nev “; NRS 172.255, 172.285), determines when a grand jury shall be impanelled (NRS 6.”
Sheriff, Clark County v. Warner (1996) nev “NRS 172.255(4). Moreover, at the third grand jury hearing, the state provided Warner with certain procedural protections including permitting Warner to testify and providing the grand jurors with known exculpatory evidence such as transcript testimony of Warner's experts who…”
Lane v. SECOND JUD. DIST., WASHOE COUNTY (1988) nev
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.