NRS
175.381 Court may advise jury to acquit defendant when evidence on
either side closed; motion for judgment of acquittal after verdict of guilty or
guilty but mentally ill; subsequent motion for new trial.
1. If, at any time after the evidence on
either side is closed, the court deems the evidence insufficient to warrant a
conviction, it may advise the jury to acquit the defendant, but the jury is not
bound by such advice.
2. The court may, on a motion of a
defendant or on its own motion, which is made after the jury returns a verdict
of guilty or guilty but mentally ill, set aside the verdict and enter a
judgment of acquittal if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
The motion for a judgment of acquittal must be made within 7 days after the
jury is discharged or within such further time as the court may fix during that
period.
3. If a motion for a judgment of acquittal
after a verdict of guilty or guilty but mentally ill pursuant to this section
is granted, the court shall also determine whether any motion for a new trial
should be granted if the judgment of acquittal is thereafter vacated or
reversed. The court shall specify the grounds for that determination. If the
motion for a new trial is granted conditionally, the order thereon does not
affect the finality of the judgment. If the motion for a new trial is granted
conditionally and the judgment is reversed on appeal, the new trial must
proceed unless the appellate court has otherwise ordered. If the motion is
denied conditionally, the defendant on appeal may assert error in that denial,
and if the judgment is reversed on appeal, subsequent proceedings must be in
accordance with the order of the appellate court.
(Added to NRS by 1967,
1430; A 1991,
651; 2007,
1410)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
52
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case:
Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462 (2005).
Evans v. Michigan, 133 S. Ct. 1069 (2013).
· cites it 2× “See Nev. Rev. Stat. §175.381 (1) (2011); State v.”
Evans v. State, 926 P.2d 265 (Nev. 1996).
· cites it 3× “NRS 175.381(2). "In contrast to conflicting evidence, insufficiency of the evidence occurs where the prosecution has not produced a minimum threshold of evidence upon which a conviction may be based, even if such evidence were believed by the jury.”
Silks v. State, 545 P.2d 1159 (Nev. 1976).
· cites it 2× “NRS 175.381; State v. Corinblit, 72 Nev. 202 , 298 P.”
Buchanan v. State, 69 P.3d 694 (Nev. 2003).
· cites it 2× “2d 684, 688 (1995); NRS 175.381(1). [17] The Honorable Cliff Young, Senior Justice, having participated in the oral argument and deliberations of this matter as a Justice of the Nevada Supreme Court, was assigned to participate in the determination of this appeal following his…”
State v. Walker, 857 P.2d 1 (Nev. 1993).
· cites it 6× “Our cases indicate that, prior to the amendment of NRS 175.381 in 1991, an evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a guilty verdict was the exclusive province of this court on appeal, and no trial court could undertake such an evaluation after a guilty verdict…”
State v. Purcell, 887 P.2d 276 (Nev. 1994).
· cites it 6× “In Walker , we held that before the amendment of NRS 175.381 became effective on October 1, 1991, in which sections 2 and 3 were added, 2 a district court could not grant a new trial based on a finding that there was insufficient evidence to support a jury *1395 verdict.”
Milton v. State, 908 P.2d 684 (Nev. 1995).
· cites it 2× “This court has said in construing NRS 175.381 4 that “‘[t]he granting of an advisory instruction to acquit rests within the sound discretion of the court.”
State v. Wilson, 760 P.2d 129 (Nev. 1988).
· cites it 4× “A related statute, NRS 175.381, provides: If, at any time after the evidence on either side is closed, the court deems the evidence insufficient to warrant a conviction, it may advise the jury to acquit the defendant, but the jury is not bound by such advice.”
Vallery v. State, 46 P.3d 66 (Nev. 2002).
“2d 276 (1994); NRS 175.381. 7 1995 Nev. Stat., ch. 607, § 9, at 2253.”
State v. Jones, 605 P.2d 202 (Nev. 1980).
· cites it 2× “Respondent requested an advisory instruction of acquittal, NRS 175.381, due to the contended variance.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.381(1) — 20 cases
Buchanan v. State, 69 P.3d 694 (Nev. 2003).
“2d 684, 688 (1995); NRS 175.381(1). [17] The Honorable Cliff Young, Senior Justice, having participated in the oral argument and deliberations of this matter as a Justice of the Nevada Supreme Court, was assigned to participate in the determination of this appeal following his…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.381(2) — 17 cases
Evans v. State, 926 P.2d 265 (Nev. 1996).
“NRS 175.381(2). "In contrast to conflicting evidence, insufficiency of the evidence occurs where the prosecution has not produced a minimum threshold of evidence upon which a conviction may be based, even if such evidence were believed by the jury.”
State v. Purcell, 887 P.2d 276 (Nev. 1994).
“In Walker , we held that before the amendment of NRS 175.381 became effective on October 1, 1991, in which sections 2 and 3 were added, 2 a district court could not grant a new trial based on a finding that there was insufficient evidence to support a jury *1395 verdict.”
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.