Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 174 - ARRAIGNMENT AND PREPARATION FOR TRIAL
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.105 (2026)

Defenses and objections which must be raised by motion

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 174.105  Defenses and objections which must be raised by motion.

      1.  Defenses and objections based on defects in the institution of the prosecution, other than insufficiency of the evidence to warrant an indictment, or in the indictment, information or complaint, other than that it fails to show jurisdiction in the court or to charge an offense, may be raised only by motion before trial. The motion shall include all such defenses and objections then available to the defendant.

      2.  Failure to present any such defense or objection as herein provided constitutes a waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver.

      3.  Lack of jurisdiction or the failure of the indictment, information or complaint to charge an offense shall be noticed by the court at any time during the pendency of the proceeding.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1416)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1969–2024 · leading case: State v. Jones, 605 P.2d 202 (Nev. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jones, 605 P.2d 202 (Nev. 1980). · cites it 2× “105(1) requires that pre-trial objections to defects in the institution of the prosecution only include those "defenses and objections then available to the defendant" and that respondent under other circumstances may have been justified in believing that the state would prove a…”
Schnepp v. State, 554 P.2d 1122 (Nev. 1976). · cites it 3× “130 is fatally defective for failure to identify with specificity the aggrieved party to whom the checks were issued and, further, for failure to describe clearly the situs of the crime.”
Sardis v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, 460 P.2d 163 (Nev. 1969). · cites it 2× “070 1 and NRS 174.105, subsection 3. 2 *590 III. PETITIONER’S EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ARCHITECTS ACT, CHAPTER 623, NEVADA REVISED STATUTES While we appreciate that our holding, just announced, is dis-positive of the present case, in order to set the matter at rest…”
Franklin v. State, 513 P.2d 1252 (Nev. 1973). “Such a challenge to the validity of the grand jury proceedings is properly made by motion (NRS 174.105(1)) and not by pretrial habeas corpus proceedings.”
Vincze v. State, 472 P.2d 936 (Nev. 1970). “However, appellant failed to make his objection timely, NRS 174.105(1) and (2), or to demonstrate how he was thereby prejudiced.”
Gibson v. State, 604 P.2d 814 (Nev. 1980). · cites it 2× “255(1); that the record fails to show that the grand jurors were sworn; that the prosecutor failed to solicit questions from the grand jurors; and that an unknown stranger entered the grand jury proceedings.”
Turpin v. Sheriff, Clark Cnty., 484 P.2d 1083 (Nev. 1971). “Moreover, such a challenge to the validity of the grand jury proceedings is one which properly must be made by motion (NRS 174.105(1)) and not by pre-trial habeas corpus proceedings.”
Prescott v. State, 456 P.2d 450 (Nev. 1969). “1 NRS 174.105(1) provides: “Defenses and objections based on defects in the institution of the prosecution, other than insufficiency of the evidence to warrant an indictment, or in the indictment, information or complaint, other than that it fails to show jurisdiction in the…”
Carbonneau v. Warden of the Nevada State Prison, 634 P.2d 1197 (Nev. 1981). · cites it 2× “” NRS 174.105 4 dictates that defenses and objections based on defects in the institution of the prosecution (other than certain specified defenses) “may be raised only by motion before trial.”
Roseneau v. State, 521 P.2d 369 (Nev. 1974). · cites it 2× “NRS 174.105. Failure to present any defense *163 or objection as provided in this section constitutes a waiver thereof unless the court is moved to grant relief for good cause shown.”
Dayani (fahd) v. Dist. Ct. (state), 554 P.3d 222 (Nev. 2024). · cites it 2× “On the other hand, NRS 174.105(1) states, "Defenses and objections based on defects in the institution of the prosecution, other than insufficiency of the evidence to warrant an indictment, .”
Sardis v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct. in & for Co., 460 P.2d 163 (Nev. 1969). · cites it 2× “070 [1] and NRS 174.105, subsection 3. [2] III. PETITIONER'S EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ARCHITECTS ACT, CHAPTER 623, NEVADA REVISED STATUTES While we appreciate that our holding, just announced, is dispositive of the present case, in order to set the matter at rest we…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.105(1) — 8 cases
State v. Jones, 605 P.2d 202 (Nev. 1980). “105(1) requires that pre-trial objections to defects in the institution of the prosecution only include those "defenses and objections then available to the defendant" and that respondent under other circumstances may have been justified in believing that the state would prove a…”
Franklin v. State, 513 P.2d 1252 (Nev. 1973). “Such a challenge to the validity of the grand jury proceedings is properly made by motion (NRS 174.105(1)) and not by pretrial habeas corpus proceedings.”
Vincze v. State, 472 P.2d 936 (Nev. 1970). “However, appellant failed to make his objection timely, NRS 174.105(1) and (2), or to demonstrate how he was thereby prejudiced.”
Turpin v. Sheriff, Clark Cnty., 484 P.2d 1083 (Nev. 1971). “Moreover, such a challenge to the validity of the grand jury proceedings is one which properly must be made by motion (NRS 174.105(1)) and not by pre-trial habeas corpus proceedings.”
Gibson v. State, 604 P.2d 814 (Nev. 1980). “255(1); that the record fails to show that the grand jurors were sworn; that the prosecutor failed to solicit questions from the grand jurors; and that an unknown stranger entered the grand jury proceedings.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.105(2) — 4 cases
Gibson v. State, 604 P.2d 814 (Nev. 1980). “255(1); that the record fails to show that the grand jurors were sworn; that the prosecutor failed to solicit questions from the grand jurors; and that an unknown stranger entered the grand jury proceedings.”
Roseneau v. State, 521 P.2d 369 (Nev. 1974). “NRS 174.105. Failure to present any defense *163 or objection as provided in this section constitutes a waiver thereof unless the court is moved to grant relief for good cause shown.”
State v. Cantsee, 2014 NV 24 (Nev. 2014).
Griffo (Llewell) v. State (Nev. 2015).
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.