NRS
175.539 Acquittal by reason of insanity: Defendant to be examined; hearing
to be held to determine whether defendant is mentally ill; procedure for
committing defendant to custody of Division of Public and Behavioral Health.
1. Where on a trial a defense of insanity
is interposed by the defendant and the defendant is acquitted by reason of that
defense, the finding of the jury pending the judicial determination pursuant to
subsection 2 has the same effect as if the defendant were regularly adjudged
insane, and the judge must:
(a) Order a peace officer to take the person into
protective custody and transport the person to a forensic facility for
detention pending a hearing to determine the person’s mental health;
(b) Order the examination of the person by two
psychiatrists, two psychologists, or one psychiatrist and one psychologist who
are employed by a division facility; and
(c) At a hearing in open court, receive the
report of the examining advisers and allow counsel for the State and for the
person to examine the advisers, introduce other evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
2. If the court finds, after the hearing:
(a) That there is not clear and convincing
evidence that the person is a person with mental illness, the court must order
the person’s discharge; or
(b) That there is clear and convincing evidence
that the person is a person with mental illness, the court must order that the
person be committed to the custody of the Administrator of the Division of
Public and Behavioral Health of the Department of Human Services until the
person is discharged or conditionally released therefrom in accordance with NRS 178.467 to 178.471, inclusive.
Ê The court
shall issue its finding within 90 days after the defendant is acquitted.
3. The Administrator shall make the
reports and the court shall proceed in the manner provided in NRS 178.467 to 178.471, inclusive.
4. If the court accepts a verdict
acquitting a defendant by reason of insanity pursuant to this section, the
court shall cause, within 5 business days after accepting the verdict, on a
form prescribed by the Department of Public Safety, a record of that verdict to
be transmitted to the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal
History, along with a statement indicating that the record is being transmitted
for inclusion in each appropriate database of the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System.
5. As used in this section, unless the
context otherwise requires:
(a) “Division facility” has the meaning ascribed
to it in NRS 433.094.
(b) “Forensic facility” means a secure facility
of the Division of Public and Behavioral Health of the Department of Human
Services or unit thereof, designated by the Division as appropriate for the
evaluation and treatment of offenders and defendants with mental disorders as
defined in NRS 178.3985. The term
includes, without limitation, Lakes Crossing Center.
(c) “National Instant Criminal Background Check
System” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS
179A.062.
(d) “Person with mental illness” has the meaning
ascribed to it in NRS 178.3986.
(Added to NRS by 2003,
1459; A 2007,
1411; 2009,
2486; 2015,
1797; 2021,
294)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case:
Blake v. State, 121 P.3d 567 (Nev. 2005).
Blake v. State, 121 P.3d 567 (Nev. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Based on the foregoing discussion, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Blake's motion.”
Hager v. State, 447 P.3d 1063 (Nev. 2019).
“533(3) (same, for a defendant who is found guilty but mentally ill); NRS 175.539(4) (same, for a defendant who is acquitted by reason of insanity); NRS 178.”
Silvanus (damien) v. State (Crim.), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 15 (Nev. 2026).
· cites it 13× “Because neither the statute governing mental health evaluation and civil commitment after an NGRI acquittal, NRS 175.539, nor the statutes governing sentencing after a GBMI conviction, NRS 175.”
Rogers v. State of Nevada, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 3 (Nev. 2026).
“Such facilities provide treatment and evaluation before any potential release into the community, NRS 175.539(5), rendering criminal sentencing credit inapplicable.”
Hager (ian) Vs. State, 2019 NV 34 (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 2× “11 but mentally ill); NRS 175.539(4) (same, for a defendant who is acquitted by reason of insanity); NRS 178.”
Holloway v. Lakecrossing Mental Health Ctr. (D. Nev. 2019).
“” NRS 19 §§ 175.539(5)(b), 433.233(1)(d). The facility provides psychiatric services to defendants with 20 mental disorders and aids the state’s determination of whether a criminal defendant is competent 21 to stand trial.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.539(1)(b) — 1 case
Silvanus (damien) v. State (Crim.), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 15 (Nev. 2026).
“Because neither the statute governing mental health evaluation and civil commitment after an NGRI acquittal, NRS 175.539, nor the statutes governing sentencing after a GBMI conviction, NRS 175.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.539(1)(c) — 1 case
Silvanus (damien) v. State (Crim.), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 15 (Nev. 2026).
“Because neither the statute governing mental health evaluation and civil commitment after an NGRI acquittal, NRS 175.539, nor the statutes governing sentencing after a GBMI conviction, NRS 175.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.539(2)(b) — 1 case
Silvanus (damien) v. State (Crim.), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 15 (Nev. 2026).
“Because neither the statute governing mental health evaluation and civil commitment after an NGRI acquittal, NRS 175.539, nor the statutes governing sentencing after a GBMI conviction, NRS 175.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.539(4) — 2 cases
Hager v. State, 447 P.3d 1063 (Nev. 2019).
“533(3) (same, for a defendant who is found guilty but mentally ill); NRS 175.539(4) (same, for a defendant who is acquitted by reason of insanity); NRS 178.”
Hager (ian) Vs. State, 2019 NV 34 (Nev. 2019).
“11 but mentally ill); NRS 175.539(4) (same, for a defendant who is acquitted by reason of insanity); NRS 178.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.539(5) — 1 case
Rogers v. State of Nevada, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 3 (Nev. 2026).
“Such facilities provide treatment and evaluation before any potential release into the community, NRS 175.539(5), rendering criminal sentencing credit inapplicable.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.539(5)(b) — 1 case
Holloway v. Lakecrossing Mental Health Ctr. (D. Nev. 2019).
“” NRS 19 §§ 175.539(5)(b), 433.233(1)(d). The facility provides psychiatric services to defendants with 20 mental disorders and aids the state’s determination of whether a criminal defendant is competent 21 to stand trial.”
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.