NRS
176.156 Disclosure of report of presentence or general investigation;
corrections to report; persons entitled to use report; confidentiality of report.
1. The Division shall disclose to the
prosecuting attorney, the counsel for the defendant and the defendant the
factual content of the report of:
(a) Any presentence investigation made pursuant
to NRS 176.135 and, if applicable,
provide the documentation required pursuant to subsection 2 of NRS 176.153, in the period provided in NRS 176.153.
(b) Any general investigation made pursuant to NRS 176.151.
Ê The Division
shall afford an opportunity to each party to object to factual errors in any
such report. The court may order the Division to correct the contents of any
such report following sentencing of the defendant if, within 180 days after the
date on which the judgment of conviction was entered, the prosecuting attorney
and the defendant stipulate to correcting the contents of any such report.
2. Unless otherwise ordered by a court,
upon request, the Division shall disclose the content of a report of a
presentence investigation or general investigation to a law enforcement agency
of this State or a political subdivision thereof and to a law enforcement
agency of the Federal Government for the limited purpose of performing their
duties, including, without limitation, conducting hearings that are public in
nature.
3. Unless otherwise ordered by a court,
upon request, the Division shall disclose the content of a report of a
presentence investigation or general investigation to the Division of Public
and Behavioral Health of the Department of Human Services for the limited
purpose of performing its duties, including, without limitation, evaluating and
providing any report or information to the Division concerning the mental
health of:
(a) A sex offender as defined in NRS 213.107; or
(b) An offender who has been determined to be
mentally ill.
4. Unless otherwise ordered by a court,
upon request, the Division shall disclose the content of a report of a
presentence investigation or general investigation to the Nevada Gaming Control
Board for the limited purpose of performing its duties in the administration of
the provisions of chapters 462 to 467, inclusive, of NRS.
5. Except for the disclosures required by
subsections 1 to 4, inclusive, a report of a presentence investigation or
general investigation and the sources of information for such a report are
confidential and must not be made a part of any public record.
(Added to NRS by 1967,
1434; A 1969,
405; 1975,
576; 1981,
1209; 1985,
149; 1993,
1513; 1995,
1057; 1997,
54; 1999,
103, 1190;
2013,
2705; 2017,
2841, 3962;
2019,
4386)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
75
cases (
46 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case:
Nunnery v. State, 263 P.3d 235 (Nev. 2011).
Nunnery v. State, 263 P.3d 235 (Nev. 2011).
· cites it 10× “Second, we consider whether the confidentiality provision in NRS 176.156 precludes the admission of presentence investigation reports at penalty hearings.”
Guy v. State, 839 P.2d 578 (Nev. 1992).
· cites it 4× “According to Mundy-Neal, appellant stated during those interviews that he supported himself by burglarizing an average of ten homes per week and that during December 1986, he and some cohorts burglarized approximately three homes per day. Appellant argues that the trial court…”
Stockmeier v. State, Bd. of Parole Commissioners, 255 P.3d 209 (Nev. 2011).
· cites it 3× “2 At the time that Stockmeier was sentenced, NRS 176.156 required the court, rather than the Division, to disclose the content of the PSI to the relevant parties and give them the opportunity to object.”
Deveroux v. State, 610 P.2d 722 (Nev. 1980).
· cites it 3× “Appellant first submits that an ex parte communication to the district court prior to sentencing violated the spirit of NRS 176.156 1 and deprived her of the right to confront witnesses.”
Rice v. State, 949 P.2d 262 (Nev. 1997).
· cites it 4× “2d 468 (1981), this court concluded that the trial court's failure to provide the defense counsel with police reports which were contained in the presentence report violated NRS 176.156 and deprived the defendant of due process.”
Herman v. State, 128 P.3d 469 (Nev. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Under NRS 176.156, a presentence report is to be presented to both parties, who have the opportunity to object to any factual errors contained in the report.”
State v. Parker, 992 A.2d 1103 (Conn. 2010).
“§ 46-18-113 (1) (2007) (same); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.156 (1) (2007) (same); N.”
Shields v. State, 634 P.2d 468 (Nev. 1981).
· cites it 5× “specifically the police officers’ reports, violated NRS 176.156 and deprived him of due process of law.”
State v. Albers, 758 N.W.2d 411 (Neb. Ct. App. 2008).
“§ 46-18-113 (1) (2007); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.156 (1) (2007); N.M.”
Etcheverry v. State, 821 P.2d 350 (Nev. 1991).
“2d 468, 468 (1981) (quoting NRS 176.156). The record reflects that the district court acted accordingly.”
Stott v. Dzurenda (D. Nev. 2019).
· cites it 2× “” NRS § 176.156(5). In addition, the need to protect medical privacy 14 || generally qualifies as a “compelling reason” for sealing records in connection with a 15 || dispositive motion.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.156(1) — 7 cases
Stockmeier v. State, Bd. of Parole Commissioners, 255 P.3d 209 (Nev. 2011).
“2 At the time that Stockmeier was sentenced, NRS 176.156 required the court, rather than the Division, to disclose the content of the PSI to the relevant parties and give them the opportunity to object.”
Rice v. State, 949 P.2d 262 (Nev. 1997).
“2d 468 (1981), this court concluded that the trial court's failure to provide the defense counsel with police reports which were contained in the presentence report violated NRS 176.156 and deprived the defendant of due process.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.156(2) — 1 case
Nunnery v. State, 263 P.3d 235 (Nev. 2011).
“Second, we consider whether the confidentiality provision in NRS 176.156 precludes the admission of presentence investigation reports at penalty hearings.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.156(5) — 41 cases
Nunnery v. State, 263 P.3d 235 (Nev. 2011).
“Second, we consider whether the confidentiality provision in NRS 176.156 precludes the admission of presentence investigation reports at penalty hearings.”
Herman v. State, 128 P.3d 469 (Nev. 2006).
“Under NRS 176.156, a presentence report is to be presented to both parties, who have the opportunity to object to any factual errors contained in the report.”
Stott v. Dzurenda (D. Nev. 2019).
“” NRS § 176.156(5). In addition, the need to protect medical privacy 14 || generally qualifies as a “compelling reason” for sealing records in connection with a 15 || dispositive motion.”
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.