Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.455 (2026)

Ground for removal; application not to be granted until after voir dire examination; appeal of order changing or refusing to change place of trial

✓ current as of July 2026

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

NRS 174.455 Ground for removal; application not to be granted until after voir dire examination; appeal of order changing or refusing to change place of trial.

1. A criminal action prosecuted by indictment, information or complaint may be removed from the court in which it is pending, on application of the defendant or state, on the ground that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county where the indictment, information or complaint is pending.

2. An application for removal of a criminal action shall not be granted by the court until after the voir dire examination has been conducted and it is apparent to the court that the selection of a fair and impartial jury cannot be had in the county where the indictment, information or complaint is pending.

3. An order in a criminal action changing or refusing to change the place of trial is appealable only on appeal from the final judgment.

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1423; A 1969, 378; 1981, 1707)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2022 · leading case: Rhyne v. State, 38 P.3d 163 (Nev. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rhyne v. State, 38 P.3d 163 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 2× “[28] See NRS 174.455. [29] 114 Nev. 910 , 965 P.2d 901 (1998).”

Floyd v. State, 42 P.3d 249 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 2× “NRS 174.455(1) provides that a criminal action "may be removed from the court in which it is pending, on application of the defendant or state, on the ground that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county where the indictment, information or complaint is pending.”

Bishop v. State, 554 P.2d 266 (Nev. 1976). · cites it 3× “He concedes that NRS 174.455 is a codification of our case law but contends that his right to due process is infringed and prejudice must be presumed by the requirement that voir dire examination must first be conducted and that it must become apparent to the trial court that a…”

Libby v. State, 859 P.2d 1050 (Nev. 1993). · cites it 2× “The articles also discussed the defense's motion to suppress the audio-taped discussions between Libby and Chief Hayes, the fact that the Nevada Supreme Court would be hearing the interlocutory appeal regarding the "confession" made during these discussions, and finally, the…”

Sicor, Inc. v. Sacks, 266 P.3d 618 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 2× “Eighteen years later, in 1969, the Legislature codified our holding in Alsup , when it amended NRS 174.455, 1969 Nev. Stat., ch. 222, § 1, at 378, which prohibits a court from granting a motion to change venue in a criminal action on such grounds until after voir dire has been…”

Rogers v. State, 705 P.2d 664 (Nev. 1985). “Counsel’s affidavit in support of the motion to change venue was unsupported by any evidence which might have demonstrated the extent or inflammatory nature of any pretrial publicity, or whether there was any prejudicial effect on the prospective jurors.”

Ford v. State, 717 P.2d 27 (Nev. 1986). “NRS 174.455. We have previously validated the tenet that an ignorant jury is neither the hallmark nor the sine qua non of a constitutionally qualified jury in today’s society.”

Cutler v. State, 566 P.2d 809 (Nev. 1977). “NRS 174.455 allows for change of venue when: “After the voir dire examination has been conducted and it is apparent to the court that a selection of a fair and impartial jury cannot be had in the county where the indictment, information or complaint is pending.”

Mazzan v. State, 863 P.2d 1035 (Nev. 1993). “090(1); NRS 174.455(3). 2 NRS 34.380 was replaced by NRS 34.”

Rosales v. Byrne (D. Nev. 2022). · cites it 2× “" Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.455 (2). 3 The court reporter did not transcribe the voir dire examination.”

Vergara-Martinez (Armando) v. State (Nev. 2016). “455(1) (explaining that the defendant may request removal on the ground that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county where the case is pending); NRS 174.455(2) ("An application for removal of a criminal action shall not be granted by the court until after the voir…”

Rogers v. McDaniel, 801 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (D. Nev. 2011). “Counsel’s affidavit in support of the motion to change venue was unsupported by any evidence which might have demonstrated the extent or inflammatory nature of any pretrial publicity, or whether there was any prejudicial effect on the prospective jurors.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.455(1) — 3 cases

Floyd v. State, 42 P.3d 249 (Nev. 2002). “NRS 174.455(1) provides that a criminal action "may be removed from the court in which it is pending, on application of the defendant or state, on the ground that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county where the indictment, information or complaint is pending.”

Libby v. State, 859 P.2d 1050 (Nev. 1993). “The articles also discussed the defense's motion to suppress the audio-taped discussions between Libby and Chief Hayes, the fact that the Nevada Supreme Court would be hearing the interlocutory appeal regarding the "confession" made during these discussions, and finally, the…”

Floyd v. Baker, 47 F. Supp. 3d 1148 (D. Nev. 2014).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.455(2) — 3 cases

Bishop v. State, 554 P.2d 266 (Nev. 1976). “He concedes that NRS 174.455 is a codification of our case law but contends that his right to due process is infringed and prejudice must be presumed by the requirement that voir dire examination must first be conducted and that it must become apparent to the trial court that a…”

Sicor, Inc. v. Sacks, 266 P.3d 618 (Nev. 2011). “Eighteen years later, in 1969, the Legislature codified our holding in Alsup , when it amended NRS 174.455, 1969 Nev. Stat., ch. 222, § 1, at 378, which prohibits a court from granting a motion to change venue in a criminal action on such grounds until after voir dire has been…”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.455(3) — 2 cases

Mazzan v. State, 863 P.2d 1035 (Nev. 1993). “090(1); NRS 174.455(3). 2 NRS 34.380 was replaced by NRS 34.”

Sicor, Inc. v. Hutchison, 266 P.3d 608 (Nev. 2011).

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.