Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 175 - TRIAL
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.061 (2026)

Alternate jurors

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 175.061  Alternate jurors.

      1.  The court may direct that not more than six jurors in addition to the regular jury be called and impaneled to sit as alternate jurors.

      2.  Alternate jurors, in the order in which they were called, shall replace jurors who become unable or disqualified to perform their duties.

      3.  Alternate jurors shall:

      (a) Be drawn in the same manner;

      (b) Have the same qualifications;

      (c) Be subject to the same examination and challenges;

      (d) Take the same oath; and

      (e) Have the same functions, powers, facilities and privileges, as the regular jurors.

      4.  If an alternate juror is required to replace a regular juror after the jury has retired to consider its verdict, the judge shall recall the jury, seat the alternate and resubmit the case to the jury.

      5.  Each side is entitled to one peremptory challenge in addition to those otherwise allowed by law if one or two alternate jurors are to be impaneled, two peremptory challenges if three or four alternate jurors are to be impaneled, and three peremptory challenges if five or six alternate jurors are to be impaneled. The additional peremptory challenges may be used against an alternate juror only, and the other peremptory challenges allowed by statute may not be used against an alternate juror.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1425; A 2005, 306)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1980–2018 · leading case: Moore v. State, 126 P.3d 508 (Nev. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Moore v. State, 126 P.3d 508 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 4× “The district court’s process to select the alternate jurors did violate NRS 175.061. However, we conclude that the failure to follow the procedures outlined in NRS 175.”
Brake v. State, 939 P.2d 1029 (Nev. 1997). · cites it 2× “NRS 175.061(3) states that "[i]f an alternate juror is required to replace a regular juror after the jury has retired to consider its verdict, the judge shall recall the jury, seat the alternate and resubmit the case to the jury.”
Stokes v. State, 843 A.2d 64 (Md. 2004). “); Nev.Rev.Stat. § 175.061 (2002); N.H.Rev.Stat.”
Morgan v. State, 416 P.3d 212 (Nev. 2018). “NRS 175.061(5). In examining prospective jurors, NRS 16.”
Carroll v. State, 892 P.2d 586 (Nev. 1995). · cites it 4× “Carroll now appeals his conviction, raising several assignments of error; however, only the fact that the district court failed to strictly comply with NRS 175.061(3) constitutes reversible error.”
Taylor v. State, 858 P.2d 843 (Nev. 1993). · cites it 2× “After the state notified the district court that the parties had not been provided the opportunity to use their peremptory challenges prior to the impanelling of the jury, the district court allowed appellant to challenge the alternate juror. The state then informed the district…”
Falcon v. State, 874 P.2d 772 (Nev. 1994). “NRS 175.061 provides for alternate jurors to replace regular jurors after the jury has retired to deliberate.”
Libby v. State, 934 P.2d 220 (Nev. 1997). “3 1 In a capital murder trial, pursuant to NRS 175.061(4), the prosecution and defense are entitled to one peremptory challenge during the selection of alternate jurors.”
McKenna v. State, 618 P.2d 348 (Nev. 1980). “NRS 175.061(1), (3). 2. We next affirm appellant’s conviction for second-degree kidnapping.”
Simmons (Kenneth) v. State (Nev. 2013). · cites it 13× “Simmons now appeals, arguing that (1) the district court erred in overruling his objection to the racial composition of the jury venire, where two of sixty-five prospective jurors were African-American; (2) the district court violated NRS 175.061(5) and committed reversible…”
Martinorellan (rogelio) Vs. State, 2015 NV 6 (Nev. 2015). · cites it 12× “" While we have not expressly addressed whether the error in this circumstance is of constitutional dimension, we have determined that a district court's failure to instruct a reconstituted jury to restart deliberations violates NRS 175.061 and can constitute reversible error.”
Martinorellan (Rogelio) v. State (Nev. 2013). · cites it 8× “He further contends that, because the district court violated NRS 175.061, the alternate who was called on to replace the excused juror was improperly chosen.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.061(1) — 1 case
McKenna v. State, 618 P.2d 348 (Nev. 1980). “NRS 175.061(1), (3). 2. We next affirm appellant’s conviction for second-degree kidnapping.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.061(3) — 2 cases
Brake v. State, 939 P.2d 1029 (Nev. 1997). “NRS 175.061(3) states that "[i]f an alternate juror is required to replace a regular juror after the jury has retired to consider its verdict, the judge shall recall the jury, seat the alternate and resubmit the case to the jury.”
Carroll v. State, 892 P.2d 586 (Nev. 1995). “Carroll now appeals his conviction, raising several assignments of error; however, only the fact that the district court failed to strictly comply with NRS 175.061(3) constitutes reversible error.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.061(3)(a) — 1 case
Martinorellan (Rogelio) v. State (Nev. 2013). “He further contends that, because the district court violated NRS 175.061, the alternate who was called on to replace the excused juror was improperly chosen.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.061(4) — 5 cases
Moore v. State, 126 P.3d 508 (Nev. 2006). “The district court’s process to select the alternate jurors did violate NRS 175.061. However, we conclude that the failure to follow the procedures outlined in NRS 175.”
Libby v. State, 934 P.2d 220 (Nev. 1997). “3 1 In a capital murder trial, pursuant to NRS 175.061(4), the prosecution and defense are entitled to one peremptory challenge during the selection of alternate jurors.”
Martinorellan (rogelio) Vs. State, 2015 NV 6 (Nev. 2015). “" While we have not expressly addressed whether the error in this circumstance is of constitutional dimension, we have determined that a district court's failure to instruct a reconstituted jury to restart deliberations violates NRS 175.061 and can constitute reversible error.”
Martinorellan (rogelio) Vs. State, 2015 NV 6 (Nev. 2015).
Martinorellan (Rogelio) v. State (Nev. 2013). “He further contends that, because the district court violated NRS 175.061, the alternate who was called on to replace the excused juror was improperly chosen.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.061(5) — 5 cases
Morgan v. State, 416 P.3d 212 (Nev. 2018). “NRS 175.061(5). In examining prospective jurors, NRS 16.”
Simmons (Kenneth) v. State (Nev. 2013). “Simmons now appeals, arguing that (1) the district court erred in overruling his objection to the racial composition of the jury venire, where two of sixty-five prospective jurors were African-American; (2) the district court violated NRS 175.061(5) and committed reversible…”
Martinorellan (Rogelio) v. State (Nev. 2013). “He further contends that, because the district court violated NRS 175.061, the alternate who was called on to replace the excused juror was improperly chosen.”
Morgan (john) Vs. State, 2018 NV 27 (Nev. 2018).
Morgan (john) Vs. State, 2018 NV 27 (Nev. 2018).
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.