NRS
176.355 Execution of death penalty: Method; time and place; witnesses.
1. The judgment of death must be inflicted
by an injection of a lethal drug.
2. The Director of the Department of
Corrections shall:
(a) Execute a sentence of death within the week,
the first day being Monday and the last day being Sunday, that the judgment is
to be executed, as designated by the district court. The Director may execute
the judgment at any time during that week if a stay of execution is not entered
by a court of appropriate jurisdiction.
(b) Select the drug or combination of drugs to be
used for the execution after consulting with the Chief Medical Officer.
(c) Be present at the execution.
(d) Notify those members of the immediate family
of the victim who have, pursuant to NRS
176.357, requested to be informed of the time, date and place scheduled for
the execution.
(e) Invite a competent physician, the county
coroner, a psychiatrist and not less than six reputable citizens over the age
of 21 years to be present at the execution. The Director shall determine the
maximum number of persons who may be present for the execution. The Director
shall give preference to those eligible members or representatives of the
immediate family of the victim who requested, pursuant to NRS 176.357, to attend the execution.
3. The execution must take place at the
state prison.
4. A person who has not been invited by
the Director may not witness the execution.
(Added to NRS by 1967,
1439; A 1977,
860; 1983,
1937; 1989,
390; 1995,
381; 2001
Special Session, 218)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case:
Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008).
Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008).
· cites it 4× “Ann. § 22-4001 (2006 Cum.Supp.); Ky.Rev.Stat.”
McConnell v. State, 102 P.3d 606 (Nev. 2004).
· cites it 6× “[11] The statute was the predecessor to Nevada's current lethal injection statute, NRS 176.355, and contained similar language.”
McConnell v. State, 212 P.3d 307 (Nev. 2009).
· cites it 2× “NRS 176.355(1). But the *249 manner in which the lethal injection is carried out — the lethal injection protocol — is left by statute to the Director of the Department of Corrections.”
Nance v. Ward, 597 U.S. 159 (2022).
“); Nev. Rev. Stat. §176.355 (1) (2017); N. C.”
Calhoun v. State, 468 A.2d 45 (Md. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.355 (1983). Nevada thus joins New Mexico in abandoning the gas chamber in favor of lethal injection.”
Hobbs v. Jones, 412 S.W.3d 844 (Ark. 2012).
“Ed.2d 420 (2008)); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-4001 ; Va.”
State v. Webb, 750 A.2d 448 (Conn. 2000).
“§ 46-19-103 (1999); Nevada, Nev. Rev Stat. § 176.355 1. (1997); New Hampshire, N.”
State v. Deputy, 644 A.2d 411 (Del. Super. Ct. 1994).
“§ 46-19-103 (1993)); Nevada (Nev.Rev.Stat. § 176.355(1) (1993)); New Hampshire (N.”
Beardslee v. Woodford, 395 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2005).
“§ 46-19-103 ; Nevada, Nev.Rev. Stat. § 176.355 1; New Hampshire, N.”
Cooper v. Rimmer, 379 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2004).
“§ 46-19-103 ; Nevada, Nev.Rev. Stat. § 176.355 1; New Hampshire, N.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.355(1) — 4 cases
McConnell v. State, 102 P.3d 606 (Nev. 2004).
“[11] The statute was the predecessor to Nevada's current lethal injection statute, NRS 176.355, and contained similar language.”
McConnell v. State, 212 P.3d 307 (Nev. 2009).
“NRS 176.355(1). But the *249 manner in which the lethal injection is carried out — the lethal injection protocol — is left by statute to the Director of the Department of Corrections.”
State v. Deputy, 644 A.2d 411 (Del. Super. Ct. 1994).
“§ 46-19-103 (1993)); Nevada (Nev.Rev.Stat. § 176.355(1) (1993)); New Hampshire (N.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.355(2)(b) — 2 cases
McConnell v. State, 102 P.3d 606 (Nev. 2004).
“[11] The statute was the predecessor to Nevada's current lethal injection statute, NRS 176.355, and contained similar language.”
McConnell v. State, 212 P.3d 307 (Nev. 2009).
“NRS 176.355(1). But the *249 manner in which the lethal injection is carried out — the lethal injection protocol — is left by statute to the Director of the Department of Corrections.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.355(3) — 1 case
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.