Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.451 (2026)

Return of jury for information

✓ current as of July 2026

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

NRS 175.451 Return of jury for information. After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there is any disagreement between them as to any part of the testimony, or if they desire to be informed on any point of law arising in the cause, they must require the officer to conduct them into court. Upon their being brought into court, the information required shall be given in the presence of, or after notice to, the district attorney and the defendant or the defendant’s counsel.

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1431)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1979–2020 · 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× “391 and NRS 175.451 and was error. On being told the jury had a note for the judge, the bailiff should not have engaged with the jury further.”

Daniel v. State, 78 P.3d 890 (Nev. 2003). “15 See NRS 175.451; Cavanaugh v. State, 102 Nev.”

White v. State, 603 P.2d 1063 (Nev. 1979). · cites it 2× “" Pursuant to NRS 175.451, the court thereafter convened in the presence of the defendant, both counsel, and the jury, whereupon the following discussion occurred: THE COURT: Well, let me ask you this then before, with consent of counsel, counsel has asked that I ask you some…”

Farmer v. State, 603 P.2d 700 (Nev. 1979). · cites it 2× “*854 Appellant further argues that the bailiff’s judicially authorized conduct constituted a per se violation of NRS 175.451, and was, a fortiori, reversible error.”

In re Halverson, 169 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2007). “See NRS 175.451; see also NRS 175.391 (emphasizing that juries are to be protected from outside influences); NRS 175.”

Cavanaugh v. State, 729 P.2d 481 (Nev. 1986). “While the court erred in answering without notice to counsel, NRS 175.451; Varner v. State, 97 Nev. 486 , 634 P.”

Varner v. State, 634 P.2d 1205 (Nev. 1981). “The district judge committed error by responding to the jury’s question without either notifying the parties or submitting the requested information in the presence of a representative from both the prosecution and each defendant.”

Griffith (Jason) v. State (Nev. 2016). · cites it 3× “misconduct, and (5) the district court failed to comply with NRS 175.451. We address each argument in turn.”

Upton (James) Vs. State, 478 P.3d 342 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “”2 Because the district court did not respond, Upton asserts that the 2 We reject Upton's assertion that the district court violated NRS 175.451 by not resolving the question before the parties as that requirement applies when the court gives the jury the information it…”

Taylor (Terrell) Vs. State (Nev. 2019). “9NRS 175.451 provides: After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there is any disagreement between them as to any part of the testimony, or if they desire to be informed on any point of law arising in the cause, they must require the officer to conduct them into court.”

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.