Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.175 (2026)

When taken

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 174.175  When taken.

      1.  If it appears that a prospective witness is an older person or a vulnerable person or may be unable to attend or prevented from attending a trial or hearing, that the witness’s testimony is material and that it is necessary to take the witness’s deposition in order to prevent a failure of justice, the court at any time after the filing of an indictment, information or complaint may, upon motion of a defendant or of the State and notice to the parties, order that the witness’s testimony be taken by deposition and that any designated books, papers, documents or tangible objects, not privileged, be produced at the same time and place. If the motion is for the deposition of an older person or a vulnerable person, the court may enter an order to take the deposition only upon good cause shown to the court. If the deposition is taken upon motion of the State, the court shall order that it be taken under such conditions as will afford to each defendant the opportunity to confront the witnesses against him or her.

      2.  If a witness is committed for failure to give bail to appear to testify at a trial or hearing, the court, on written motion of the witness and upon notice to the parties, may direct that the witness’s deposition be taken. After the deposition has been subscribed, the court may discharge the witness.

      3.  This section does not apply to the prosecutor, or to an accomplice in the commission of the offense charged.

      4.  As used in this section:

      (a) “Older person” means a person who is 70 years of age or older.

      (b) “Vulnerable person” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 200.5092.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1418; A 2009, 2552; 2015, 825)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2020–2020 · leading case: Virgil (Anthony) Vs. State C/W 78306 (Nev. 2020).
Virgil (Anthony) Vs. State C/W 78306 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “In particular, Virgil contends NRS 174.175(3) prevented the State from obtaining Hal- Henderson's videotaped deposition, and that the videotaped deposition violated the Confrontation Clause.”
Virgil (Anthony) Vs. State C/W 78306 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “In particular, Virgil contends NRS 174.175(3) prevented the State from obtaining Hal- Henderson's videotaped deposition, and that the videotaped deposition violated the Confrontation Clause.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.175(3) — 2 cases
Virgil (Anthony) Vs. State C/W 78306 (Nev. 2020). “In particular, Virgil contends NRS 174.175(3) prevented the State from obtaining Hal- Henderson's videotaped deposition, and that the videotaped deposition violated the Confrontation Clause.”
Virgil (Anthony) Vs. State C/W 78306 (Nev. 2020). “In particular, Virgil contends NRS 174.175(3) prevented the State from obtaining Hal- Henderson's videotaped deposition, and that the videotaped deposition violated the Confrontation Clause.”
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.