Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.295 (2026)

Continuing duty to disclose; failure to comply; sanctions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 174.295 Continuing duty to disclose; failure to comply; sanctions.

1. If, after complying with the provisions of NRS 174.235 to 174.295, inclusive, and before or during trial, a party discovers additional material previously requested which is subject to discovery or inspection under those sections, the party shall promptly notify the other party or the other party’s attorney or the court of the existence of the additional material.

2. If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with the provisions of NRS 174.234 to 174.295, inclusive, the court may order the party to permit the discovery or inspection of materials not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, or prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, or it may enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1420; A 1995, 265; 1997, 2370)

SUBPOENA

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 31 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case: Evans v. State, 28 P.3d 498 (Nev. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Evans v. State, 28 P.3d 498 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 4× “NRS 174.295(1) provides that if a party discovers additional material during *518 trial which is subject to discovery, it shall promptly notify the other party or the court of the existence of the material.”

Lopez v. State, 769 P.2d 1276 (Nev. 1989). · cites it 2× “*78 Based on a motion for continuing discovery granted to appellant March 28, 1985, Lopez complains that the late receipt of the written report on April 9, 1985, during a trial lunch recess, violates NRS 174.295 and the Supreme Court mandate of Brady v.”

Donovan v. State, 584 P.2d 708 (Nev. 1978). · cites it 2× “Although counsel had entered into an informal agreement, the prosecution had invited defense counsel to inspect the files, but the offer went unaccepted.”

Maginnis v. State, 561 P.2d 922 (Nev. 1977). · cites it 2× “The record disclosed the State’s non-compliance was neither willful nor deliberate, and the court took appropriate action pursuant to NRS 174.295 to protect appellants from any prejudice.”

Langford v. State, 600 P.2d 231 (Nev. 1979). · cites it 2× “See NRS 174.295. Remedies available to the district court include the power to “permit the discovery or inspection of materials not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, or prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, or it may enter such…”

Sampson v. State, 122 P.3d 1255 (Nev. 2005). “Pursuant to NRS 174.295(2), the remedy for a violation of the discovery provisions of NRS 174.”

State v. Tapia, 835 P.2d 22 (Nev. 1992). · cites it 2× “The court held that the document was a precursor document with respect to the computer spreadsheets and excluded it under NRS 174.295, which places parties under a continuing duty to disclose additional material.”

State v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of State, 431 P.3d 47 (Nev. 2018). “233 through NRS 174.295. 1 Because no constitutional provision, statute, or court rule mandates disclosure of such information, Artiga-Morales held-as most courts confronted with the question have held-that the district court did not err when it declined to order the prosecution…”

Burnett (Carlton) Vs. State, 473 P.3d 1020 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “NRS 174.295(2). The district court must exclude the testimony if the party acted in bad faith.”

State v. Dist. Ct. (Mcguire (Brandon)) (Nev. 2022). · cites it 5× “" NRS 174.295(2) (emphasis added). Under the plain meaning of NRS 174.”

Coddington (Ryan) v. State (Nev. 2018). · cites it 3× “" If a party fails to comply with the disclosure requirements, "the court may order the party to permit the discovery or inspection of materials not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, or prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, or it…”

Kendrick (Malik) Vs. State (Nev. 2020). · cites it 3× “In addition, NRS 174.295 imposes an obligation on the State to promptly notify the defense as to the existence of additional material encompassed by NRS 174.”

Show all 31 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.295(1) — 5 cases

Evans v. State, 28 P.3d 498 (Nev. 2001). “NRS 174.295(1) provides that if a party discovers additional material during *518 trial which is subject to discovery, it shall promptly notify the other party or the court of the existence of the material.”

Coddington (Ryan) v. State (Nev. 2018). “" If a party fails to comply with the disclosure requirements, "the court may order the party to permit the discovery or inspection of materials not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, or prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, or it…”

Kendrick (Malik) Vs. State (Nev. 2020). “In addition, NRS 174.295 imposes an obligation on the State to promptly notify the defense as to the existence of additional material encompassed by NRS 174.”

Smith (Nathanael) Vs. State (Nev. 2020).

Coddington v. State, 415 P.3d 12 (Nev. 2018).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.295(2) — 21 cases

Sampson v. State, 122 P.3d 1255 (Nev. 2005). “Pursuant to NRS 174.295(2), the remedy for a violation of the discovery provisions of NRS 174.”

Burnett (Carlton) Vs. State, 473 P.3d 1020 (Nev. 2020). “NRS 174.295(2). The district court must exclude the testimony if the party acted in bad faith.”

State v. Dist. Ct. (Mcguire (Brandon)) (Nev. 2022). “" NRS 174.295(2) (emphasis added). Under the plain meaning of NRS 174.”

Burnside (timothy) Vs. State (death penalty/direct), 2015 NV 40 (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.