Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.515 (2026)

Postponement: When and how ordered; court may require depositions of and undertakings by witnesses; court may consider adverse effect upon child who is victim or witness

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 174.515  Postponement: When and how ordered; court may require depositions of and undertakings by witnesses; court may consider adverse effect upon child who is victim or witness.

      1.  When an action is called for trial, or at any time previous thereto, the court may, upon sufficient cause shown by either party by affidavit, direct the trial to be postponed to another day. In all cases where a continuance is granted upon the application of either party the court may require, as a condition of granting such continuance, that the party applying therefor consent to taking, forthwith, or at any time to be fixed by the court, of the deposition of any witness summoned by the opposite party whose deposition has not previously been taken.

      2.  The court also may require all witnesses to enter into undertakings in such sum as the court may order, with or without sureties, to appear and testify on the day to which the case may be continued, but any witness who is unable to procure sureties for the witness’s attendance may be discharged on the witness’s own recognizance, upon giving a deposition in the manner prescribed in NRS 174.175 and 174.205.

      3.  If the trial involves acts committed against a child less than 16 years of age or involving acts witnessed by a child less than 16 years of age, the court may consider any adverse effect a continuance or other postponement might have upon the mental or emotional health or well-being of the child. The court may deny a continuance or other postponement if the delay will adversely affect the mental or emotional health or well-being of the child.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1424; A 1989, 588; 1995, 400)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1991–2000 · leading case: Lord v. State, 806 P.2d 548 (Nev. 1991).
Lord v. State, 806 P.2d 548 (Nev. 1991). · cites it 2× “2d 1174 (1978); see also NRS 174.515. In the present case, the district judge abused this discretion by refusing to grant this reasonable request for a modest continuance.”
Sheriff, Washoe Cnty. v. Marcus, 995 P.2d 1016 (Nev. 2000). “After Marcus entered a not guilty plea at his arraignment hearing, the Sparks Justice Court set the case for trial. Prior to trial, however, the State filed a motion for continuance supported by an affidavit from the district attorney as required by NRS 174.”
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.