Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 173 - INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 173.095 (2026)

Amendment; notice of habitual criminality, habitually fraudulent felon or habitual felon

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 173.095  Amendment; notice of habitual criminality, habitually fraudulent felon or habitual felon.

      1.  The court may permit an indictment or information to be amended at any time before verdict or finding if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.

      2.  If an indictment is found charging a primary offense upon which a charge of habitual criminality may be based, the prosecuting attorney may file a notice of habitual criminality with the court. If an indictment is found charging a primary offense upon which a charge of:

      (a) Habitually fraudulent felon may be based, the prosecuting attorney shall file a notice of habitually fraudulent felon with the court.

      (b) Habitual felon may be based, the prosecuting attorney shall file a notice of habitual felon with the court.

      3.  The court shall permit an information to be amended pursuant to subsection 4 of NRS 173.035.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1413; A 1985, 1026; 1993, 82; 1995, 857, 1245)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: State v. Hancock, 955 P.2d 183 (Nev. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hancock, 955 P.2d 183 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 4× “The record shows that the State has been repeatedly told that its charging documents were defective or vague, yet the State made no significant effort to change the language it employed throughout the proceedings of this case, starting with the original criminal complaint. The…”
Armis Arrendondo v. Dwight Neven, 763 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2014). “See Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 173.095 , 207.016(2). At that time, the statute permitted the prosecutor to seek an enhanced sentence, at the discretion of the prosecuting attorney, see Nev.”
Randolph v. State, 36 P.3d 424 (Nev. 2001). “NRS 173.095(1) provides that a district court "may permit an indictment or information to be amended at any time before verdict or finding if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.”
Grant v. State, 24 P.3d 761 (Nev. 2001). “11 See NRS 173.095(1); see also Parsons v. District Court, 110 Nev.”
Viray v. State, 111 P.3d 1079 (Nev. 2005). “NRS 173.095(1) states, “The court may permit an indictment or information to be amended at any time before verdict or finding if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.”
Parsons v. Fifth Jud. Dist. Court, 885 P.2d 1316 (Nev. 1994). · cites it 2× “Parsons argues that the justice court had such authority pursuant to NRS 173.095, which provides in part: *1244 1.”
McGervey v. State, 958 P.2d 1203 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 3× “We conclude that the district court erred in accepting the State’s construction of NRS 173.095. NRS 173.095 addresses amendment of an indictment and provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he court may permit an indictment or information to be amended at any time before verdict,”…”
Dressler v. State, 819 P.2d 1288 (Nev. 1991). “See NRS 173.095(1) (authorizing amendment of the information before verdict).”
Shannon v. State, 783 P.2d 942 (Nev. 1989). “See NRS 173.095(1). The amended information in this case conforms with this criteria.”
State v. Dist. Ct., 997 P.2d 126 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 2× “The State contends that the district court's granting of Taylor's motion to strike the second amended information was an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion.”
Benitez v. State, 904 P.2d 1036 (Nev. 1995). “The district court “may permit an indictment or information to be amended at any time before verdict or finding if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.”
Green v. State, 576 P.2d 1123 (Nev. 1978). “” Of course, although amendment of an information is usually within the trial court’s discretion, that discretion is abused if an “additional or different offense is charged”or the “substantial rights of the defendant are prejudiced.”
Show all 45 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 173.095(1) — 30 cases
State v. Hancock, 955 P.2d 183 (Nev. 1998). “The record shows that the State has been repeatedly told that its charging documents were defective or vague, yet the State made no significant effort to change the language it employed throughout the proceedings of this case, starting with the original criminal complaint. The…”
Randolph v. State, 36 P.3d 424 (Nev. 2001). “NRS 173.095(1) provides that a district court "may permit an indictment or information to be amended at any time before verdict or finding if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.”
Grant v. State, 24 P.3d 761 (Nev. 2001). “11 See NRS 173.095(1); see also Parsons v. District Court, 110 Nev.”
Viray v. State, 111 P.3d 1079 (Nev. 2005). “NRS 173.095(1) states, “The court may permit an indictment or information to be amended at any time before verdict or finding if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.”
Dressler v. State, 819 P.2d 1288 (Nev. 1991). “See NRS 173.095(1) (authorizing amendment of the information before verdict).”
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.