Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.556 (2026)

Procedure when jury unable to reach unanimous verdict

✓ current as of July 2026

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

NRS 175.556 Procedure when jury unable to reach unanimous verdict.

1. In a case in which the death penalty is sought, if a jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict upon the sentence to be imposed, the district judge who conducted the trial or accepted the plea of guilty shall sentence the defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or impanel a new jury to determine the sentence.

2. In a case in which the death penalty is not sought, if a jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict upon the sentence to be imposed, the trial judge shall impose the sentence.

(Added to NRS by 1977, 1543; A 1995, 259; 2003, 2083)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2022 · leading case: Redmen v. State, 828 P.2d 395 (Nev. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Redmen v. State, 828 P.2d 395 (Nev. 1992). · cites it 16× “Pursuant to NRS 175.556, a three-judge panel was convened to determine the sentence.”

Beets v. State, 821 P.2d 1044 (Nev. 1991). · cites it 20× “In an order filed August 15, 1989, we ordered a three judge panel to conduct a penalty hearing pursuant to NRS 175.556. [2] At the second penalty hearing, the judges indicated that they had reviewed the transcripts of the previous proceedings, both the guilt and penalty phases.”

Maestas v. State, 275 P.3d 74 (Nev. 2012). · cites it 10× “First, we consider whether NRS 175.556 violates the Eighth Amendment because it allows the district court unfettered discretion to choose between imposing a life-without-parole sentence and impaneling a new jury to determine the sentence when a jury is unable to reach a…”

Johnson v. State, 59 P.3d 450 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 2× “” 32 NRS 175.556(1) provides that when a jury in a capital case cannot reach a unanimous verdict upon the sentence, a panel of three district judges shall “conduct the required penalty hearing to determine the presence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and give…”

Harrison v. Gillespie, 640 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.556 (1). [5] We note that, in certain cases, defendants in Nevada may file a pretrial motion to bifurcate the capital-sentencing hearing into distinct phases.”

State v. Hunt, 558 A.2d 1259 (N.J. 1989). · cites it 2× “Nev.Rev.Stat. § 175.556 (1987). In Arizona, Idaho, Montana, and Nebraska, the court alone imposes the sentence.”

Hollaway v. State, 6 P.3d 987 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 2× “554(2), (3); NRS 175.556; Bennett v. State, 111 Nev. 1099, 1109-10 , 901 P.”

Hill v. State, 724 P.2d 734 (Nev. 1986). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to NRS 175.556 1 , this court appointed two *379 district court judges who, together with the district court judge who presided at Hill’s trial, conducted a second penalty hearing.”

State v. Hochstein, 632 N.W.2d 273 (Neb. 2001). “2000) (if panel of judges cannot unanimously agree on sentence, it shall make *324 record of each judge’s position and shall then sentence defendant to life imprisonment); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.556 (2000) (sentence of death may be given only by unanimous vote of three judges);…”

State of Arizona v. Efren Medina, 306 P.3d 48 (Ariz. 2013). “4(b); Nev. Rev.Stat. § 175.556(1). ¶ 28 Imposing death on a defendant who succeeds in having his court-imposed death sentence reversed in post-conviction proceedings and for whom the first penalty-phase jury was unable to reach a decision is not disproportionate punishment.”

Williams v. State, 945 P.2d 438 (Nev. 1997). · cites it 2× “556 4 violates a defendant’s right to an impartial tribunal and to due process of law by not providing a mechanism for challenging the selection and qualification of panel members, and by returning death sentences more often than juries do. This precise argument has been decided…”

Barlow (keith) v. State (death Penalty-direct), 2022 NV 25 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 2× “See NRS 175.556(1) (providing the procedure in a capital case when a jury cannot render a unanimous verdict as to the sentence to be imposed).”

Show all 16 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.556(1) — 4 cases

Maestas v. State, 275 P.3d 74 (Nev. 2012). “First, we consider whether NRS 175.556 violates the Eighth Amendment because it allows the district court unfettered discretion to choose between imposing a life-without-parole sentence and impaneling a new jury to determine the sentence when a jury is unable to reach a…”

Johnson v. State, 59 P.3d 450 (Nev. 2002). “” 32 NRS 175.556(1) provides that when a jury in a capital case cannot reach a unanimous verdict upon the sentence, a panel of three district judges shall “conduct the required penalty hearing to determine the presence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and give…”

State of Arizona v. Efren Medina, 306 P.3d 48 (Ariz. 2013). “4(b); Nev. Rev.Stat. § 175.556(1). ¶ 28 Imposing death on a defendant who succeeds in having his court-imposed death sentence reversed in post-conviction proceedings and for whom the first penalty-phase jury was unable to reach a decision is not disproportionate punishment.”

Barlow (keith) v. State (death Penalty-direct), 2022 NV 25 (Nev. 2022). “See NRS 175.556(1) (providing the procedure in a capital case when a jury cannot render a unanimous verdict as to the sentence to be imposed).”

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.