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
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.”
DEAN (SEAN) v. SHERIFF (2022) nev · cites it 3× “See NRS 175.031 2We do not suggest that the court needed to reprimand counsel in front of the venire; rather, the court could have excused the venire or conducted a bench conference to admonish counsel.”
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.”
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…”
Wilson (Brent) v. State (2016) nev “See NRS 175.031 ("Any supplemental examination must not be unreasonably restricted.”
Haberstroh (Richard) v. State (Death Penalty-Direct) (2015) nev “" While nothing in the statute or SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) 1947A ato, this court's jurisprudence requires that the prosecution be afforded the first opportunity to query prospective jurors, see NRS 175.031, Haberstroh articulates no specific prejudice from the district…”
Bowles (Travis) v. State (2013) nev “See NRS 175.031. Having considered Bowles' contentions and concluded that he is not entitled to relief, we ORDER the judgwnt of conviction AFFIRMED.”
Lamb v. State (2011) nev “Quoting NRS 175.031, Lamb also complains that the district court “unreasonably restricted” his voir dire.”
Rogers v. McDaniel (2011) nvd “The Nevada Supreme Court ruled as follows: Defendant asserts that by refusing to allow defense counsel to ask each juror what his or her individual verdict was in previous jury service the district court unreasonably restricted voir dire. Defendant has not shown that the court’s…”
Libby v. State (1993) nev · cites it 2× “NRS 175.031; Milligan v. State, 101 Nev. 627 , 708 P.”
Salazar v. State (1991) nev · cites it 4× “So we *985 ran out of time. It was time for exercising peremptory challenge [sic].”
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.”
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.