Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.401 (2026)

Jury to be admonished at each adjournment

✓ current as of July 2026

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

NRS 175.401 Jury to be admonished at each adjournment. At each adjournment of the court, whether the jurors are permitted to separate or depart for home overnight, or are kept in charge of officers, they must be admonished by the judge or another officer of the court that it is their duty not to:

1. Converse among themselves or with anyone else on any subject connected with the trial;

2. Read, watch or listen to any report of or commentary on the trial or any person connected with the trial by any medium of information, including without limitation newspapers, television and radio; or

3. If they have not been charged, form or express any opinion on any subject connected with the trial until the cause is finally submitted to them.

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1430; A 1977, 883; 1981, 318)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases, 1968–2020 · leading case: Blake v. State, 121 P.3d 567 (Nev. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Blake v. State, 121 P.3d 567 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 8× “Failure to admonish the jury prior to all recesses of the district court Blake contends that he was denied his right to a fair trial because the district court failed to admonish the jury pursuant to NRS 175.401 prior to every recess. [33] The record reveals six occasions on…”

Chambers v. State, 944 P.2d 805 (Nev. 1997). · cites it 6× “Chambers argues that the district court committed reversible error by failing to admonish the jury before each adjournment, as required by NRS 175.401. [1] The record shows that the district court did fully admonish the jury before every recess of any major length of time in…”

Johnson v. State, 59 P.3d 450 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 2× “Johnson contends that the jurors violated their duties under NRS 175.401 14 and that the district court erred in declining to conduct *797 an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the misconduct was harmful.”

Flores v. State, 965 P.2d 901 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 4× “Flores appeals his conviction, claiming that the practice of jury-questioning violated NRS 175.401 and his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.”

Bollinger v. State, 901 P.2d 671 (Nev. 1995). · cites it 3× “After empaneling a jury, the district court admonished jurors, pursuant to NRS 175.401, to refrain from talking about the trial and to avoid coming into contact with the media.”

Nunnery v. State, 263 P.3d 235 (Nev. 2011). “Although the jurors’ familiarity appears to have contributed to a lapse in strict compliance with the court’s admonitions not to talk among themselves on any subject related to the case, see NRS 175.”

Hernandez v. State, 50 P.3d 1100 (Nev. 2002). “As required by NRS 175.401, the court admonished them in the meantime not to talk among themselves or with anyone else on any subject related to the trial; not to read, watch, or listen to any report or commentary pertaining to the trial; and not to form or express any opinion…”

Viray v. State, 111 P.3d 1079 (Nev. 2005). “Juror four was dismissed for violating the district court’s admonishment under NRS 175.401(1), which states in pertinent part that at each adjournment, the judge must admonish the jurors not to “[cjonverse among themselves or with anyone else on any subject connected with the…”

Arndt v. State, 572 P.2d 538 (Nev. 1977). · cites it 3× “In addition, the court noted that after the jury had been empaneled the previous day, but before it was excused, it had, in comporting with NRS 175.401 (2), 1 admonished the jurors that they were, inter alia, “not to read any newspaper article or listen to or view any radio or…”

Jones v. State, 600 P.2d 247 (Nev. 1979). “020: “Every person concerned in the commission of a felony, gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor, whether he directly commits the act constituting the offense, or aids or abets in its commission, and whether present or absent; and every person who, directly or indirectly, counsels,…”

In re Halverson, 169 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2007). “1, 19 (1978) (explaining that a predeprivation hearing is not always required and that a post-deprivation hearing satisfies due process when the circumstances necessitate quick action, when the length and severity of the deprivation are not serious, and when the procedures…”

Rowbottom v. State, 779 P.2d 934 (Nev. 1989). “In addition to the mandatory admonishment pursuant to NRS 175.401, district judges should also admonish jurors in criminal cases that they are not to visit the crime scene or make any independent investigations.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.401(1) — 2 cases

Veal (Clyde) Vs. State (Nev. 2020).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.401(2) — 2 cases

Arndt v. State, 572 P.2d 538 (Nev. 1977). “In addition, the court noted that after the jury had been empaneled the previous day, but before it was excused, it had, in comporting with NRS 175.401 (2), 1 admonished the jurors that they were, inter alia, “not to read any newspaper article or listen to or view any radio or…”

Crowe v. State, 441 P.2d 90 (Nev. 1968).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.401(3) — 1 case

Flores v. State, 965 P.2d 901 (Nev. 1998). “Flores appeals his conviction, claiming that the practice of jury-questioning violated NRS 175.401 and his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.”

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.