NRS
174.235 Disclosure by prosecuting attorney of evidence relating to
prosecution; limitations.
1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 174.233 to 174.295, inclusive, at the request of a
defendant, the prosecuting attorney shall permit the defendant to inspect and
to copy or photograph any:
(a) Written or recorded statements or confessions
made by the defendant, or any written or recorded statements made by a witness
the prosecuting attorney intends to call during the case in chief of the State,
or copies thereof, within the possession, custody or control of the State, the
existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become
known, to the prosecuting attorney;
(b) Results or reports of physical or mental
examinations, scientific tests or scientific experiments made in connection
with the particular case, or copies thereof, within the possession, custody or
control of the State, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of
due diligence may become known, to the prosecuting attorney; and
(c) Books, papers, documents, tangible objects,
or copies thereof, which the prosecuting attorney intends to introduce during
the case in chief of the State and which are within the possession, custody or
control of the State, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of
due diligence may become known, to the prosecuting attorney.
2. The defendant is not entitled, pursuant
to the provisions of this section, to the discovery or inspection of:
(a) An internal report, document or memorandum
that is prepared by or on behalf of the prosecuting attorney in connection with
the investigation or prosecution of the case.
(b) A statement, report, book, paper, document,
tangible object or any other type of item or information that is privileged or
protected from disclosure or inspection pursuant to the Constitution or laws of
this state or the Constitution of the United States.
3. The provisions of this section are not
intended to affect any obligation placed upon the prosecuting attorney by the
Constitution of this state or the Constitution of the United States to disclose
exculpatory evidence to the defendant.
(Added to NRS by 1967,
1419; A 1995,
264; 1997,
2367)
Notes of Decisions
Binegar v. Eighth Judicial District Court (1996)
nev · cites it 16×
“089(1) and NRS 174.235(1) would violate article 1, section 8 of the Nevada Constitution if they were interpreted to apply only to witnesses and materials that the defendant intended to introduce at trial.”
Evans v. State (2001)
nev · cites it 4×
“Evans also asserts that the letter was a written statement by Evans that was not disclosed to him in violation of NRS 174.235. [67] Assuming that this statute applies here, we conclude that it was complied with.”
Binegar v. District Court (1996)
nev · cites it 16×
“089(1) and NRS 174.235(1) would violate article 1, section 8 of the Nevada Constitution if they were interpreted to apply only to witnesses and materials that the defendant intended to introduce at trial.”
Donovan v. State (1978)
nev · cites it 4×
“Defense counsel and the prosecutor had informally agreed that the State would provide materials discoverable under NRS 174.235. Through inadvertence, the prosecutor only provided one statement, and when he attempted to introduce the second statement at trial, as well, defense…”
State v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (2004)
nev · cites it 3×
“9 *619 Statutory authority The State argues that the closest statutory sources empowering the trial court to order an alleged sexual assault victim to submit to a psychological examination are NRS 174.235 and NRCP 35, but that neither the statute nor the rule grants sufficient…”
Lamb v. State (2011)
nev
“Finally, the State provided Lamb access to the evidence as required by NRS 174.235, and the voluminous writings recovered from Lamb’s apartment, car, and storage unit were adequately authenticated under NRS 52.”
State v. Dist. Ct.(Epperson) (2004)
nev · cites it 2×
“The district court viewed the videotape and held that it was discoverable under NRS 174.235. Because nothing in NRS 174.235 or NRS 200.”
Wilson v. State (2005)
nev
“24 This court held that “[b]ecause nothing in NRS 174.235 or NRS 200.710 to 200.735 precludes child pornography from being copied for the purpose of defending criminal charges,” the Epperson defendants had a right to possess a copy of the videotape to prepare for trial, provided…”
Nolan v. State (2006)
nev
“ically recorded by audio or video recording equipment, including, without limitation, any interview that was conducted before or after the hypnosis was induced; (e) The recording of the entire session at which the hypnosis was induced was made available by the party who produced…”
State of Nevada v. Justice Court (1996)
nev
“4 NRS 174.235 to 174.295. 5 We note that the clerk of this court issued the requested writ, pursuant to our order of January 31, 1996, on that same date.”
Maginnis v. State (1977)
nev
“295 provides: “If, subsequent to compliance with an order issued pursuant to NRS 174.235 to 174.295, inclusive, and- prior to or during trial, a party discovers additional material previously requested or ordered which is subject to discovery or inspection under such sections,…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.235(1) — 12 cases
Evans v. State (2001)
nev
“Evans also asserts that the letter was a written statement by Evans that was not disclosed to him in violation of NRS 174.235. [67] Assuming that this statute applies here, we conclude that it was complied with.”
Binegar v. Eighth Judicial District Court (1996)
nev
“089(1) and NRS 174.235(1) would violate article 1, section 8 of the Nevada Constitution if they were interpreted to apply only to witnesses and materials that the defendant intended to introduce at trial.”
Binegar v. District Court (1996)
nev
“089(1) and NRS 174.235(1) would violate article 1, section 8 of the Nevada Constitution if they were interpreted to apply only to witnesses and materials that the defendant intended to introduce at trial.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.235(1)(a) — 8 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.235(1)(c) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.235(2) — 5 cases
Binegar v. Eighth Judicial District Court (1996)
nev
“089(1) and NRS 174.235(1) would violate article 1, section 8 of the Nevada Constitution if they were interpreted to apply only to witnesses and materials that the defendant intended to introduce at trial.”
Binegar v. District Court (1996)
nev
“089(1) and NRS 174.235(1) would violate article 1, section 8 of the Nevada Constitution if they were interpreted to apply only to witnesses and materials that the defendant intended to introduce at trial.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.235(2)(a) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.235(2)(b) — 3 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.235(l)(a) — 1 case
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.