NRS
175.161 Instructions.
1. Upon the close of the argument, the
judge shall charge the jury. The judge may state the testimony and declare the
law, but may not charge the jury in respect to matters of fact. The charge must
be reduced to writing before it is given, and no charge or instructions may be
given to the jury otherwise than in writing, unless by the mutual consent of
the parties. If either party requests it, the court must settle and give the
instructions to the jury before the argument begins, but this does not prevent
the giving of further instructions which may become necessary by reason of the
argument.
2. In charging the jury, the judge shall
state to them all such matters of law the judge thinks necessary for their
information in giving their verdict.
3. Either party may present to the court
any written charge, and request that it be given. If the court believes that
the charge is pertinent and an accurate statement of the law, whether or not
the charge has been adopted as a model jury instruction, it must be given. If
the court believes that the charge is not pertinent or not an accurate
statement of law, then it must be refused.
4. An original and one copy of each
instruction requested by any party must be tendered to the court. The copies
must be numbered and indicate who tendered them. Copies of instructions given
on the court’s own motion or modified by the court must be so identified. When
requested instructions are refused, the judge shall write on the margin of the
original the word “refused” and initial or sign the notation. The instructions
given to the jury must be firmly bound together and the judge shall write the
word “given” at the conclusion thereof and sign the last of the instructions to
signify that all have been given. After the instructions are given, the judge
may not clarify, modify or in any manner explain them to the jury except in
writing unless the parties agree to oral instructions.
5. After the jury has reached a verdict
and been discharged, the originals of all instructions, whether given, modified
or refused, must be preserved by the clerk as part of the proceedings.
6. Conferences with counsel to settle
instructions must be held out of the presence of the jury and may be held in
chambers at the option of the court.
7. When the offense charged carries a
possible penalty of life without possibility of parole a charge to the jury
that such penalty does not exclude executive clemency is a correct and
pertinent charge, and must be given upon the request of either party.
(Added to NRS by 1967,
1427; A 1969,
401; 1981,
410; 2017,
1707)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2023 · leading case:
Valdez v. State
Valdez v. State (2008)
nev · cites it 4×
“" [3] In any trial, NRS 175.161(1) requires the district court to instruct the jury at the close of argument with written instructions.”
Petrocelli v. State (1985)
nev · cites it 3×
“NRS 175.161(7) provides that, upon request of either party, the jury must be informed that in cases where life without possibility of parole is a possible penalty, “such penalty does not exclude executive clemency.”
Sonner v. State (1996)
nev · cites it 2×
“2 Sonner argues that, in his case, the instruction violated his constitutional rights to due process and a reliable sentence because it misled the jury into believing that parole was a future possibility even if it sentenced him to life without possibility of parole.”
Daniel v. State (2003)
nev
“63 See NRS 175.161(2), (3); see also Vallery v. State, 118 Nev.”
Randolph v. State (2001)
nev
“" [7] And NRS 175.161(1) provides: "Upon the close of the argument, the judge shall charge the jury.”
Young v. State (2023)
nevapp · cites it 2×
“Further, under NRS 175.161(3), "[e]ither party may present to the court any COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA 194711 31 We also decline to reverse the associated burglary charges, as Young fails to demonstrate plain error or present proof that the instruction was patently prejudicial.”
Milligan v. State (1985)
nev
“Milligan asserts that the instruction erroneously instructs the jury as to matters of fact in violation of the Nevada Consititution, article 6 section 2 and NRS 175.161(1). We have noted initially that Milligan failed to object to the instruction at trial, nevertheless, we have…”
Quillen v. State (1996)
nev
“NRS 175.161(3). In this case, the district court rejected Quillen’s proposed instruction, concluding that the alleged inconsistencies were trivial.”
Redeford v. State (1977)
nev
“” We need not decide whether the trial court’s actions violated this rule, since we conclude the form of the instruction itself was erroneous.”
Oliver v. State (1969)
nev
“NRS 175.161. This summary of statutory law fairly well states the procedure allowed in selecting and qualifying jurors, determining their fairness to serve, and instructions to them on law.”
McCraney v. State (1994)
nev
“Further, NRS 175.161(3) states that either party may present a proposed instruction and request it be given, and if the court thinks the instruction is correct, it must be given.”
Vincent v. State (1981)
nev
“It is the duty of a district court to instruct the jury on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the facts of the case before it.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.161(1) — 5 cases
Valdez v. State (2008)
nev
“" [3] In any trial, NRS 175.161(1) requires the district court to instruct the jury at the close of argument with written instructions.”
Randolph v. State (2001)
nev
“" [7] And NRS 175.161(1) provides: "Upon the close of the argument, the judge shall charge the jury.”
Milligan v. State (1985)
nev
“Milligan asserts that the instruction erroneously instructs the jury as to matters of fact in violation of the Nevada Consititution, article 6 section 2 and NRS 175.161(1). We have noted initially that Milligan failed to object to the instruction at trial, nevertheless, we have…”
Redeford v. State (1977)
nev
“” We need not decide whether the trial court’s actions violated this rule, since we conclude the form of the instruction itself was erroneous.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.161(2) — 2 cases
Daniel v. State (2003)
nev
“63 See NRS 175.161(2), (3); see also Vallery v. State, 118 Nev.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.161(3) — 9 cases
Young v. State (2023)
nevapp
“Further, under NRS 175.161(3), "[e]ither party may present to the court any COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA 194711 31 We also decline to reverse the associated burglary charges, as Young fails to demonstrate plain error or present proof that the instruction was patently prejudicial.”
Quillen v. State (1996)
nev
“NRS 175.161(3). In this case, the district court rejected Quillen’s proposed instruction, concluding that the alleged inconsistencies were trivial.”
McCraney v. State (1994)
nev
“Further, NRS 175.161(3) states that either party may present a proposed instruction and request it be given, and if the court thinks the instruction is correct, it must be given.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.161(6) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.161(7) — 2 cases
Petrocelli v. State (1985)
nev
“NRS 175.161(7) provides that, upon request of either party, the jury must be informed that in cases where life without possibility of parole is a possible penalty, “such penalty does not exclude executive clemency.”
Sonner v. State (1996)
nev
“2 Sonner argues that, in his case, the instruction violated his constitutional rights to due process and a reliable sentence because it misled the jury into believing that parole was a future possibility even if it sentenced him to life without possibility of parole.”
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.