Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.391 (2026)

Separation or custody of jury before submission

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 175.391 Separation or custody of jury before submission. The jurors sworn to try a criminal action may, at any time before the submission of the case to the jury, in the discretion of the court, be permitted to separate, depart for home overnight or be kept in charge of a proper officer. Upon commencing deliberation, the jurors shall be kept in charge of a proper officer, unless at the discretion of the court they are permitted to depart for home overnight. When the jurors are kept together, the officer in charge shall keep the jurors in some private and convenient place and separate from other persons. The officer shall not permit any communication to be made to them, or make any personally, unless by order of the court, except to ask them if they have agreed upon their verdict. The officer shall not, before the verdict is rendered, communicate to any person the state of their deliberations or the verdict agreed upon. The officer shall return them into court when they have reached their verdict or when ordered by the court.

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1430; A 1977, 882)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1969–2011 · leading case: Lamb v. State, 251 P.3d 700 (Nev. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lamb v. State, 251 P.3d 700 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 3× “The bailiff’s ex parte communication with the jury violated NRS 175.391 and NRS 175.451 and was error.”

Falcon v. State, 874 P.2d 772 (Nev. 1994). · cites it 2× “061 provides for alternate jurors to replace regular jurors after the jury has retired to deliberate. However, no statute provides for the dismissal of alternate jurors once deliberations begin.”

Rogers v. State, 705 P.2d 664 (Nev. 1985). “NRS 175.391. Defendant insists that the State’s failure to preserve the jar with his fingerprint on it that was found under the blanket with the victims’ bodies deprived him of due process because an examination of the jar may have led to evidence refuting prosecution testimony.”

Farmer v. State, 603 P.2d 700 (Nev. 1979). · cites it 2× “Although the bailiff’s communication was not expressly authorized by statute, NRS 175.391, 2 it was not prejudicial. NRS 47.”

Crew v. State, 675 P.2d 986 (Nev. 1984). “Appellant contends that he was denied a fair trial because the trial court refused to sequester the jury despite widespread public sentiment against appellant and extensive media coverage of his trial.”

In re Halverson, 169 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2007). “451; see also NRS 175.391 (emphasizing that juries are to be protected from outside influences); NRS 175.”

Walker v. State, 455 P.2d 34 (Nev. 1969). “Later he did move to sequester in the presence of the jury and it was granted. Then, well into the trial, Walker in the absence of the jury indicated that the jury was inconvenienced by the sequestration and the long evening sessions.”

Rogers v. McDaniel, 801 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (D. Nev. 2011). · cites it 2× “In his motion to sequester the jury, in the trial court, Rogers’ entire argument was as follows: It is clear from the wording of NRS 175.391 that a jury should be sequestered, upon their being sworn, unless the trial court exercises his discretion to let them separate.”

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.