NRS
176.139 Presentence investigation and report: Psychosexual evaluation of
certain defendants required; standards and methods for conducting evaluation;
access to records; rights of confidentiality and privileges deemed waived;
report of results; costs.
1. If a defendant is convicted of a sexual
offense for which the suspension of sentence or the granting of probation is
permitted or if a joint request is submitted to the Division pursuant to
subsection 5 of NRS 176.135, the
Division shall arrange for a psychosexual evaluation of the defendant as part
of the Division’s presentence investigation and report to the court.
2. The psychosexual evaluation of the
defendant must be conducted by a person professionally qualified to conduct
psychosexual evaluations.
3. The person who conducts the psychosexual
evaluation of the defendant must use diagnostic tools that are generally
accepted as being within the standard of care for the evaluation of sex
offenders, and the psychosexual evaluation of the defendant must include:
(a) A comprehensive clinical interview with the
defendant; and
(b) A review of all investigative reports
relating to the defendant’s sexual offense or other offense and all statements
made by victims of that offense.
4. The psychosexual evaluation of the
defendant may include:
(a) A review of records relating to previous
criminal offenses committed by the defendant;
(b) A review of records relating to previous
evaluations and treatment of the defendant;
(c) A review of the defendant’s records from
school;
(d) Interviews with the defendant’s parents, the
defendant’s spouse or other persons who may be significantly involved with the
defendant or who may have relevant information relating to the defendant’s
background; and
(e) The use of psychological testing, polygraphic
examinations and arousal assessment.
5. The person who conducts the
psychosexual evaluation of the defendant must be given access to all records of
the defendant that are necessary to conduct the evaluation, and the defendant
shall be deemed to have waived all rights of confidentiality and all privileges
relating to those records for the limited purpose of the evaluation.
6. The person who conducts the
psychosexual evaluation of the defendant shall:
(a) Prepare a comprehensive written report of the
results of the evaluation;
(b) Include in the report all information that is
necessary to carry out the provisions of NRS
176A.110; and
(c) Provide a copy of the report to the Division.
7. If a psychosexual evaluation is
conducted pursuant to this section, the court shall:
(a) Order the defendant, to the extent of the
defendant’s financial ability, to pay for the cost of the psychosexual
evaluation; or
(b) If the defendant was less than 18 years of
age when the sexual offense or other offense was committed and the defendant
was certified and convicted as an adult, order the parents or guardians of the
defendant, to the extent of their financial ability, to pay for the cost of the
psychosexual evaluation. For the purposes of this paragraph, the court has
jurisdiction over the parents or guardians of the defendant to the extent that
is necessary to carry out the provisions of this paragraph.
(Added to NRS by 1997,
1638; A 1999,
1286; 2001,
1636; 2023,
1821)
Notes of Decisions
Blackburn v. State of Nevada, 294 P.3d 422 (Nev. 2013).
· cites it 23× “110 and NRS 176.139 call for the use of clinical judgment in tandem with diagnostic tools, we affirm.”
Dzul v. State, 56 P.3d 875 (Nev. 2002).
· cites it 8× “The district court accepted Dzul's guilty plea and thereafter ordered him to undergo a psychosexual evaluation pursuant to NRS 176.139. Dzul maintained his innocence throughout the psychosexual evaluation, asserting that he was hugging and tickling the child and never intended…”
Austin v. State, 151 P.3d 60 (Nev. 2007).
· cites it 22× “110(1)(a) and NRS 176.139 make clear that for a defendant convicted of felony statutory sexual seduction, the psychosexual evaluation and certification needed for probation can be prepared by a clinical social worker who is trained in conducting psychosexual evaluations.”
Bolden v. State (Nev. 2023).
· cites it 8× “of' NRS 176.139 was enacted .in 1.997, see 1997 Nev.”
Bolden v. State, 538 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2023).
· cites it 8× “of' NRS 176.139 was enacted .in 1.997, see 1997 Nev.”
Williams (Patrick) v. State (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 6× “110 and NRS 176.139 as applied to this case. In particular, Williams contends that requiring risk assessments, pursuant to NRS 176A.”
Doraji (Amir) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2021).
· cites it 4× “Neither NRS 176.139 nor NRS 176A.110 require the district court to substitute the report prepared for the Division with a report prepared by a defense expert.”
Fisher (Dale) v. State (Nev. 2016).
“110 and NRS 176.139 are unconstitutional because they violate the separation of powers.”
Whitaker (Tennille) Vs. State (Nev. 2019).
“Addressing the psychosexual report, we conclude that the district court considered the psychosexual report, and therefore, it did not violate NRS 176.139. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion by giving less weight to the psychosexual evaluation during…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.139(1) — 3 cases
Dzul v. State, 56 P.3d 875 (Nev. 2002).
“The district court accepted Dzul's guilty plea and thereafter ordered him to undergo a psychosexual evaluation pursuant to NRS 176.139. Dzul maintained his innocence throughout the psychosexual evaluation, asserting that he was hugging and tickling the child and never intended…”
Austin v. State, 151 P.3d 60 (Nev. 2007).
“110(1)(a) and NRS 176.139 make clear that for a defendant convicted of felony statutory sexual seduction, the psychosexual evaluation and certification needed for probation can be prepared by a clinical social worker who is trained in conducting psychosexual evaluations.”
Williams (Patrick) v. State (Nev. 2017).
“110 and NRS 176.139 as applied to this case. In particular, Williams contends that requiring risk assessments, pursuant to NRS 176A.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.139(2) — 4 cases
Blackburn v. State of Nevada, 294 P.3d 422 (Nev. 2013).
“110 and NRS 176.139 call for the use of clinical judgment in tandem with diagnostic tools, we affirm.”
Austin v. State, 151 P.3d 60 (Nev. 2007).
“110(1)(a) and NRS 176.139 make clear that for a defendant convicted of felony statutory sexual seduction, the psychosexual evaluation and certification needed for probation can be prepared by a clinical social worker who is trained in conducting psychosexual evaluations.”
Williams (Patrick) v. State (Nev. 2017).
“110 and NRS 176.139 as applied to this case. In particular, Williams contends that requiring risk assessments, pursuant to NRS 176A.”
Doraji (Amir) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2021).
“Neither NRS 176.139 nor NRS 176A.110 require the district court to substitute the report prepared for the Division with a report prepared by a defense expert.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.139(3) — 1 case
Blackburn v. State of Nevada, 294 P.3d 422 (Nev. 2013).
“110 and NRS 176.139 call for the use of clinical judgment in tandem with diagnostic tools, we affirm.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.139(3)(a) — 1 case
Blackburn v. State of Nevada, 294 P.3d 422 (Nev. 2013).
“110 and NRS 176.139 call for the use of clinical judgment in tandem with diagnostic tools, we affirm.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.139(4) — 1 case
Blackburn v. State of Nevada, 294 P.3d 422 (Nev. 2013).
“110 and NRS 176.139 call for the use of clinical judgment in tandem with diagnostic tools, we affirm.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.139(4)(e) — 1 case
Blackburn v. State of Nevada, 294 P.3d 422 (Nev. 2013).
“110 and NRS 176.139 call for the use of clinical judgment in tandem with diagnostic tools, we affirm.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.139(5) — 1 case
Blackburn v. State of Nevada, 294 P.3d 422 (Nev. 2013).
“110 and NRS 176.139 call for the use of clinical judgment in tandem with diagnostic tools, we affirm.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.139(7) — 2 cases
Bolden v. State (Nev. 2023).
“of' NRS 176.139 was enacted .in 1.997, see 1997 Nev.”
Bolden v. State, 538 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2023).
“of' NRS 176.139 was enacted .in 1.997, see 1997 Nev.”
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.