Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 176 - JUDGMENT AND EXECUTION

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.156

Disclosure of report of presentence or general investigation; corrections to report; persons entitled to use report; confidentiality of report

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
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
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nunnery v. State (2011) nev · 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 (1992) nev · 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, Board of Parole Commissioners (2011) nev · 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 (1980) nev · 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 (1997) nev · 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 (2006) nev · 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 (2010) conn “§ 46-18-113 (1) (2007) (same); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.156 (1) (2007) (same); N.”
Shields v. State (1981) nev · cites it 5× “specifically the police officers’ reports, violated NRS 176.156 and deprived him of due process of law.”
State v. Albers (2008) nebctapp “§ 46-18-113 (1) (2007); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.156 (1) (2007); N.M.”
Etcheverry v. State (1991) nev “2d 468, 468 (1981) (quoting NRS 176.156). The record reflects that the district court acted accordingly.”
Toliver v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officers (2021) nvd · cites it 4× “3 The Court often has granted motions to seal presentence investigation reports 4 under NRS § 176.156, finding that, under Kamakana v.”
Stott v. Dzurenda (2019) nvd · 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.”
Show all 75 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.156(1) — 7 cases
Stockmeier v. State, Board of Parole Commissioners (2011) nev “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 (1997) nev “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.”
Heidmark v. Warden, Nevada State Prison (1975) nev
Sasser v. State (2014) nev
Gomez v. State (2014) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.156(2) — 1 case
Nunnery v. State (2011) nev “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 (2011) nev “Second, we consider whether the confidentiality provision in NRS 176.156 precludes the admission of presentence investigation reports at penalty hearings.”
Herman v. State (2006) nev “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 (2019) nvd “” 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.”
Johnson v. State of Nevada (2019) nvd
Wilson v. State of Nevada (2020) nvd
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.