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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.141 (2026)

Order of trial

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 175.141  Order of trial.  The jury having been impaneled and sworn, the trial shall proceed in the following order:

      1.  If the indictment or information be for a felony, the clerk must read it and state the plea of the defendant to the jury. In all other cases this formality may be dispensed with.

      2.  The prosecuting attorney must open the cause. The defendant or the defendant’s counsel may then either make the defendant’s opening statement or reserve it to be made immediately prior to the presentation of evidence in the defendant’s behalf.

      3.  The prosecuting attorney must then offer its evidence in support of the charge, and the defendant may then offer evidence in his or her defense.

      4.  The parties may then respectively offer rebutting testimony only, unless the court, for good reasons, in furtherance of justice, permits them to offer evidence upon their original cause.

      5.  When the evidence is concluded, unless the case is submitted to the jury on either side, or on both sides, without argument, the prosecuting attorney must open and must conclude the argument.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1426; A 2021, 1312)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1975–2019 · leading case: Schoels v. State, 966 P.2d 735 (Nev. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Schoels v. State, 966 P.2d 735 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 8× “554(3) place the burden on the defendant to prove that mitigating circumstances outweigh aggravating circumstances to avoid the death penalty, and argues that this burden should result in the defendant being allowed to argue last during the penalty phase.”
Hernandez v. State, 50 P.3d 1100 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 2× “This court has held that the State properly argues last in a capital penalty phase because NRS 175.141 mandates it and because the State has the burden of proving aggrava-tors beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Weber v. State, 119 P.3d 107 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 2× “As we have repeatedly explained, NRS 175.141(5) requires that counsel for the State open and conclude argument.”
Blake v. State, 121 P.3d 567 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 2× “[39] Moreover, NRS 175.141(5) provides that the State shall argue last, as this court has repeatedly noted.”
Johnson v. State, 59 P.3d 450 (Nev. 2002). “45 See NRS 175.141; see also, e.g., Witter v. State, 112 Nev.”
Williams v. State, 945 P.2d 438 (Nev. 1997). · cites it 2× “8 NRS 175.141 9 mandates that the State open and close the argument.”
Maestas v. State, 275 P.3d 74 (Nev. 2012). “See also NRS 175.141(5) (requiring prosecution to open and conclude argument).”
Williams v. State, 539 P.2d 461 (Nev. 1975). “The order of trial contemplated by NRS 175.141 (3) (4) was not offended. The court, in allowing the state to reopen, acted well within its discretion.”
Witter v. State, 921 P.2d 886 (Nev. 1996). · cites it 3× “Second, unless the case is submitted to the jury by one or both sides without argument, NRS 175.141 6 mandates that the district attorney, or other counsel for the state, open and conclude argument.”
Harte (shawn) Vs. State, 2016 NV 40 (Nev. 2016). · cites it 6× “The district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the State to open and conclude the closing arguments Harte also argues that the district court erred because the mandate in NRS 175.141(5) that the State argue both first and last does not apply in a penalty hearing.”
Harte (shawn) Vs. State, 2016 NV 40 (Nev. 2016). · cites it 2× “The district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the State to open and conclude the closing arguments Harte also argues that the district court erred because the mandate in NRS 175.141(5) that the State argue both first and last does not apply in a penalty hearing.”
Joseph (Donovan) v. State (Nev. 2018). “Defense counsel has the right to reserve opening statement until immediately before presenting the defense case, NRS 175.141(2), and Joseph has not shown extraordinary circumstances warranting a challenge to counsel's tactical decision.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.141(1) — 2 cases
Caperonis (Brian) v. State (Nev. 2019).
Caperonis (Brian) v. State (Nev. 2019).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.141(2) — 1 case
Joseph (Donovan) v. State (Nev. 2018). “Defense counsel has the right to reserve opening statement until immediately before presenting the defense case, NRS 175.141(2), and Joseph has not shown extraordinary circumstances warranting a challenge to counsel's tactical decision.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.141(5) — 6 cases
Schoels v. State, 966 P.2d 735 (Nev. 1998). “554(3) place the burden on the defendant to prove that mitigating circumstances outweigh aggravating circumstances to avoid the death penalty, and argues that this burden should result in the defendant being allowed to argue last during the penalty phase.”
Weber v. State, 119 P.3d 107 (Nev. 2005). “As we have repeatedly explained, NRS 175.141(5) requires that counsel for the State open and conclude argument.”
Blake v. State, 121 P.3d 567 (Nev. 2005). “[39] Moreover, NRS 175.141(5) provides that the State shall argue last, as this court has repeatedly noted.”
Maestas v. State, 275 P.3d 74 (Nev. 2012). “See also NRS 175.141(5) (requiring prosecution to open and conclude argument).”
Harte (shawn) Vs. State, 2016 NV 40 (Nev. 2016). “The district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the State to open and conclude the closing arguments Harte also argues that the district court erred because the mandate in NRS 175.141(5) that the State argue both first and last does not apply in a penalty hearing.”
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.