Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.121 (2026)

Personal knowledge of jurors

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 175.121  Personal knowledge of jurors.

      1.  The judge shall then admonish the jury that:

      (a) No juror may declare to any fellow jurors any fact relating to the case as of the juror’s own knowledge; and

      (b) If any juror discovers during the trial or after the jury has retired that he or she or any other juror has personal knowledge of any fact in controversy in the case, the juror shall disclose such situation to the judge out of the presence of the other jurors.

      2.  When any such disclosure is made, the judge shall examine the juror who admits or is alleged to have personal knowledge, under oath, in the presence of counsel for the parties, and may allow such counsel to examine the juror.

      3.  If the juror has disclosed the juror’s own knowledge to the judge and it appears that the juror has not declared any fact relating to the case to any fellow jurors as of the juror’s own knowledge, the judge shall after the examination decide whether the juror shall remain or shall be replaced by an alternate juror.

      4.  If it appears that the juror has declared any fact relating to the case to any fellow jurors as of the juror’s own knowledge, or that the juror’s vote was influenced by such knowledge undisclosed, the judge shall declare a mistrial.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1426)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1969–2019 · leading case: Meyer v. State, 80 P.3d 447 (Nev. 2003).
Meyer v. State, 80 P.3d 447 (Nev. 2003). · cites it 4× “2d at 151-52 ; see also NRS 175.121. [57] Saya, 247 F.3d at 937 .”
Libby v. State, 859 P.2d 1050 (Nev. 1993). · cites it 2× “Soon after the jury was impaneled and sworn in, however, the State filed the interlocutory appeal regarding the "confession" Libby made during his discussion with Chief Hayes. The jury was brought back almost two months later, in April, 1990.”
State v. Thacker, 596 P.2d 508 (Nev. 1979). · cites it 2× “See also NRS 175.121. 2 Morris’ testimony in the jury room rebutted respondents’ theory of the case.”
Hui v. State, 738 P.2d 892 (Nev. 1987). · cites it 3× “NRS 175.121(4) prescribes: If it appears that the juror has declared any fact relating to the case to his fellow jurors as of his own knowledge, or that his vote was influenced by such knowledge undisclosed, the judge shall declare a mistrial.”
Hall v. State, 513 P.2d 1244 (Nev. 1973). · cites it 2× “071; NRS 175.121 (4). 4 See: United States ex rel.”
Oliver v. State, 456 P.2d 431 (Nev. 1969). “NRS 175.121. The judge, upon the close' of argument, may state the testimony and declare the law to the jurors, but he may not charge with respect to fact.”
Cazares, III (Manuel) v. State (Nev. 2019). · cites it 2× “Failure to properly admonish the jury under NRS 175.121 Cazares also assigns error to the timing of the district court's admonishment regarding the jurors' duty not to make statements about the facts of the case based on their own knowledge and to disclose any personal knowledge…”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.121(1)(a): 1 case
Meyer v. State, 80 P.3d 447 (Nev. 2003). “2d at 151-52 ; see also NRS 175.121. [57] Saya, 247 F.3d at 937 .”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.121(4): 2 cases
Hall v. State, 513 P.2d 1244 (Nev. 1973). “071; NRS 175.121 (4). 4 See: United States ex rel.”
Hui v. State, 738 P.2d 892 (Nev. 1987). “NRS 175.121(4) prescribes: If it appears that the juror has declared any fact relating to the case to his fellow jurors as of his own knowledge, or that his vote was influenced by such knowledge undisclosed, the judge shall declare a mistrial.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.121(l)(a): 1 case
Hui v. State, 738 P.2d 892 (Nev. 1987). “NRS 175.121(4) prescribes: If it appears that the juror has declared any fact relating to the case to his fellow jurors as of his own knowledge, or that his vote was influenced by such knowledge undisclosed, the judge shall declare a mistrial.”
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.