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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.415 (2026)

When execution of death penalty may be stayed

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 176.415  When execution of death penalty may be stayed.  The execution of a judgment of death must be stayed only:

      1.  By the State Board of Pardons Commissioners as authorized in Section 14 of Article 5 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada;

      2.  By the Governor if the Governor grants a reprieve pursuant to Section 13 of Article 5 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada;

      3.  When a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence is taken to the appellate court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the rules fixed by the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 4 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution;

      4.  By a judge of the district court of the county in which the state prison is situated, for the purpose of an investigation of sanity or pregnancy as provided in NRS 176.425 to 176.485, inclusive;

      5.  By a judge of the district court in which a motion is filed pursuant to subsection 5 of NRS 175.554, for the purpose of determining whether the defendant is intellectually disabled; or

      6.  Pursuant to the provisions of NRS 176.0919 or 176.486 to 176.492, inclusive.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1440; A 1987, 1221; 2003, 768; 2007, 25; 2013, 686, 1756)

Insanity or Pregnancy

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1992–2019 · leading case: State v. Perry, 610 So. 2d 746 (La. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Perry, 610 So. 2d 746 (La. 1992). “§ 29-2537 *769 to -2538 (1978); Nev.Rev.Stat. §§ 176.415 to 455 (1986); N.”
State v. Dist. Ct. (Alvogen, Inc.), No. 76485 (Nev. Jan. 4, 2019). “Petitioners/appellants argue that the matter is not moot because a question exists as to whether the TRO was an improper stay of execution under NRS 176.415, and the appeal from the preliminary injunction cannot resolve TRO-specific issues.”
State v. Alvogen, Inc., No. 76510 (Nev. Jan. 4, 2019). “Petitioners/appellants argue that the matter is not moot because a question exists as to whether the TRO was an improper stay of execution under NRS 176.415, and the appeal from the preliminary injunction cannot resolve TRO-specific issues.”
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.