Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.554 (2026)

Death penalty cases: Instructions to jury; determinations; findings and verdict; hearing to set aside sentence of defendant alleged to be intellectually disabled

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 175.554  Death penalty cases: Instructions to jury; determinations; findings and verdict; hearing to set aside sentence of defendant alleged to be intellectually disabled.  In cases in which the death penalty is sought:

      1.  The court shall instruct the jury at the end of the penalty hearing, and shall include in its instructions the aggravating circumstances alleged by the prosecution upon which evidence has been presented during the trial or at the hearing. The court shall also instruct the jury as to the mitigating circumstances alleged by the defense upon which evidence has been presented during the trial or at the hearing.

      2.  The jury shall determine:

      (a) Whether an aggravating circumstance or circumstances are found to exist;

      (b) Whether a mitigating circumstance or circumstances are found to exist; and

      (c) Based upon these findings, whether the defendant should be sentenced to imprisonment for a definite term of 50 years, life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or death.

      3.  The jury may impose a sentence of death only if it finds at least one aggravating circumstance and further finds that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstance or circumstances found.

      4.  If a jury imposes a sentence of death, the jury shall render a written verdict signed by the foreman. The verdict must designate the aggravating circumstance or circumstances which were found beyond a reasonable doubt, and must state that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstance or circumstances found.

      5.  If a sentence of death is imposed and a prior determination regarding intellectual disability has not been made pursuant to NRS 174.098, the defendant may file a motion to set aside the penalty on the grounds that the defendant is intellectually disabled. If such a motion is filed, the court shall conduct a hearing on that issue in the manner set forth in NRS 174.098. If the court determines pursuant to such a hearing that the defendant is intellectually disabled, it shall set aside the sentence of death and order a new penalty hearing to be conducted. Either party may appeal such a determination pursuant to NRS 177.015.

      (Added to NRS by 1977, 1543; A 1993, 322; 1995, 258; 2003, 768, 2083; 2013, 685, 1752)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2022 · leading case: Nunnery v. State, 263 P.3d 235 (Nev. 2011).
Nunnery v. State, 263 P.3d 235 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 15× “The notice of intent required under SCR 250(4)(c)-(d) puts the defendant on notice that the State will seek the death penalty, which carries with it the requirement that the State prove at least one statutory aggravating circumstance, see NRS 175.554(1), (3); NRS 200.030(4)(a),…”
Canape v. State, 859 P.2d 1023 (Nev. 1993). · cites it 26× “5, taken from NRS 175.554, (set out in the Young Plurality Opinion) was confusing and misleading to the jury.”
Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994). · cites it 4× “1993); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.554 (2)(c)(2) (1993); Okla.”
Byford v. State, 994 P.2d 700 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 6× “NRS 175.554(1) provides that in a capital penalty hearing before a jury, the court shall instruct the jury on the relevant aggravating circumstances and "shall also instruct the jury as to the mitigating circumstances alleged by the defense upon which evidence has been presented…”
Ybarra v. State, 247 P.3d 269 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 5× “First, we consider whether the denial of Ybarra’s motion to disqualify the post-conviction district court judge based on implied bias violated state and federal guarantees of due process.”
Harrison v. Gillespie, 640 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 7× “” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.554 (4) (“If a jury imposes a sentence of death, the jury shall render a written verdict signed by the foreman.”
Hollaway v. State, 6 P.3d 987 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 6× “If the penalty hearing is conducted before a jury, the court shall instruct the jury at the end of the hearing, and shall include in its instructions the aggravating circumstances alleged by the prosecution .”
Middleton v. State, 968 P.2d 296 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 4× “030(4)(a); NRS 175.554(3). 8 If an enu *1117 merated aggravator or aggravators are found, the jury must find that any mitigators do not outweigh the aggravators before a defendant is death eligible.”
Barlow (keith) v. State (death Penalty-direct), 2022 NV 25 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 8× “Under NRS 175.554(1), the district court must instruct the jury on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances alleged by the parties.”
Thomas v. State, 148 P.3d 727 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 4× “This court has held that NRS 175.554(1) requires the district court to instruct on "alleged mitigators upon which evidence has been presented and does not restrict such instructions to the enumerated statutory mitigators.”
Servin v. State, 32 P.3d 1277 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 4× “030(4)(a); NRS 175.554(3). [15] Hollaway, 116 Nev. at 746, 6 P.”
Rhyne v. State, 38 P.3d 163 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 2× “[38] See NRS 175.554(3); see also Leonard v. State, 114 Nev.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.554(1) — 5 cases
Byford v. State, 994 P.2d 700 (Nev. 2000). “NRS 175.554(1) provides that in a capital penalty hearing before a jury, the court shall instruct the jury on the relevant aggravating circumstances and "shall also instruct the jury as to the mitigating circumstances alleged by the defense upon which evidence has been presented…”
Thomas v. State, 148 P.3d 727 (Nev. 2006). “This court has held that NRS 175.554(1) requires the district court to instruct on "alleged mitigators upon which evidence has been presented and does not restrict such instructions to the enumerated statutory mitigators.”
Deutscher v. State, 601 P.2d 407 (Nev. 1979).
Nunnery v. State, 263 P.3d 235 (Nev. 2011). “The notice of intent required under SCR 250(4)(c)-(d) puts the defendant on notice that the State will seek the death penalty, which carries with it the requirement that the State prove at least one statutory aggravating circumstance, see NRS 175.554(1), (3); NRS 200.030(4)(a),…”
Barlow (keith) v. State (death Penalty-direct), 2022 NV 25 (Nev. 2022). “Under NRS 175.554(1), the district court must instruct the jury on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances alleged by the parties.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.554(2) — 9 cases
Canape v. State, 859 P.2d 1023 (Nev. 1993). “5, taken from NRS 175.554, (set out in the Young Plurality Opinion) was confusing and misleading to the jury.”
Nunnery v. State, 263 P.3d 235 (Nev. 2011). “The notice of intent required under SCR 250(4)(c)-(d) puts the defendant on notice that the State will seek the death penalty, which carries with it the requirement that the State prove at least one statutory aggravating circumstance, see NRS 175.554(1), (3); NRS 200.030(4)(a),…”
Bishop v. State, 597 P.2d 273 (Nev. 1979).
Hollaway v. State, 6 P.3d 987 (Nev. 2000). “If the penalty hearing is conducted before a jury, the court shall instruct the jury at the end of the hearing, and shall include in its instructions the aggravating circumstances alleged by the prosecution .”
Howard v. State, 800 P.2d 175 (Nev. 1990).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.554(2)(a) — 1 case
Barlow (keith) v. State (death Penalty-direct), 2022 NV 25 (Nev. 2022). “Under NRS 175.554(1), the district court must instruct the jury on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances alleged by the parties.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.554(2)(b) — 2 cases
Nunnery v. State, 263 P.3d 235 (Nev. 2011). “The notice of intent required under SCR 250(4)(c)-(d) puts the defendant on notice that the State will seek the death penalty, which carries with it the requirement that the State prove at least one statutory aggravating circumstance, see NRS 175.554(1), (3); NRS 200.030(4)(a),…”
Barlow (keith) v. State (death Penalty-direct), 2022 NV 25 (Nev. 2022). “Under NRS 175.554(1), the district court must instruct the jury on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances alleged by the parties.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.554(2)(c) — 3 cases
Canape v. State, 859 P.2d 1023 (Nev. 1993). “5, taken from NRS 175.554, (set out in the Young Plurality Opinion) was confusing and misleading to the jury.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.554(3) — 30 cases
Nunnery v. State, 263 P.3d 235 (Nev. 2011). “The notice of intent required under SCR 250(4)(c)-(d) puts the defendant on notice that the State will seek the death penalty, which carries with it the requirement that the State prove at least one statutory aggravating circumstance, see NRS 175.554(1), (3); NRS 200.030(4)(a),…”
Middleton v. State, 968 P.2d 296 (Nev. 1998). “030(4)(a); NRS 175.554(3). 8 If an enu *1117 merated aggravator or aggravators are found, the jury must find that any mitigators do not outweigh the aggravators before a defendant is death eligible.”
Rhyne v. State, 38 P.3d 163 (Nev. 2002). “[38] See NRS 175.554(3); see also Leonard v. State, 114 Nev.”
Jeremias v. State, 412 P.3d 43 (Nev. 2018).
Vanisi v. State, 22 P.3d 1164 (Nev. 2001).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.554(4) — 5 cases
Nunnery v. State, 263 P.3d 235 (Nev. 2011). “The notice of intent required under SCR 250(4)(c)-(d) puts the defendant on notice that the State will seek the death penalty, which carries with it the requirement that the State prove at least one statutory aggravating circumstance, see NRS 175.554(1), (3); NRS 200.030(4)(a),…”
Servin v. State, 32 P.3d 1277 (Nev. 2001). “030(4)(a); NRS 175.554(3). [15] Hollaway, 116 Nev. at 746, 6 P.”
Barlow (keith) v. State (death Penalty-direct), 2022 NV 25 (Nev. 2022). “Under NRS 175.554(1), the district court must instruct the jury on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances alleged by the parties.”
Maestas v. State, 275 P.3d 74 (Nev. 2012).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.554(5) — 4 cases
Ybarra v. State, 247 P.3d 269 (Nev. 2011). “First, we consider whether the denial of Ybarra’s motion to disqualify the post-conviction district court judge based on implied bias violated state and federal guarantees of due process.”
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.