Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 175 - TRIAL

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.031

Examination of trial jurors

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 175.031  Examination of trial jurors.  The court shall conduct the initial examination of prospective jurors, and defendant or the defendant’s attorney and the district attorney are entitled to supplement the examination by such further inquiry as the court deems proper. Any supplemental examination must not be unreasonably restricted.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1424; A 1971, 246; 1979, 213)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1969–2022 · leading case: CHAPARRO (OSBALDO) VS. STATE
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
CHAPARRO (OSBALDO) VS. STATE (2021) nev · cites it 3× “NRS 175.031 provides that "Mlle court shall conduct the initial examination of prospective jurors, and defendant or the defendant's attorney and the district attorney are entitled to supplement the examination by such further inquiry as the court deems proper.”
Cunningham v. State (1978) nev · cites it 3× “The district court conducted the examination of the trial jurors in accordance with NRS 175.031. 1 “[T]he scope of that examination is within the sound discretion of the court[,]” Oliver v.”
Libby v. State (1993) nev · cites it 2× “NRS 175.031; Milligan v. State, 101 Nev. 627 , 708 P.”
Morgan v. State (2018) nev “" NRS 175.031. We conclude that the district court did not unreasonably restrict the scope of Morgan's supplemental examination during voir dire and, thus, did not abuse its discretion because review of the record reveals that although the district court rejected several…”
Lamb v. State (2011) nev “Quoting NRS 175.031, Lamb also complains that the district court “unreasonably restricted” his voir dire.”
Salazar v. State (1991) nev · cites it 4× “So we *985 ran out of time. It was time for exercising peremptory challenge [sic].”
BARLOW (KEITH) v. STATE (DEATH PENALTY-DIRECT) (2022) nev · cites it 2× “See NRS 175.031 (providing that the district court shall allow supplemental examination of potential jurors "as the court deems propee); Johnson v.”
Rogers v. State (1985) nev “NRS 175.031; Oliver v. State, 85 Nev. 418 , 456 P.”
Haynes v. State (1987) nev “While some prospective jurors may be inhibited from speaking frankly about their exposure to and impressions of mental illness, the defense counsel could have asked the trial court during collective voir dire for independent, sequestered voir dire as to any prospective jurors…”
Whitlock v. Salmon (1988) nev “A complete denial of attorney-conducted voir dire cannot be construed as a reasonable restriction and therefore the trial judge committed reversible error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case for a new trial.”
Summers v. State (1986) nev “See NRS 175.031. Absent a showing that the district court abused its discretion or that the defendant was prejudiced, we shall not disturb a district court’s determination to conduct a collective voir dire of prospective jurors.”
Oliver v. State (1969) nev “NRS 175.031. Our law permits a challenge to prospective jurors for any cause or favor which would *423 prevent him from adjudging the facts fairly.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
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.