Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 177 - APPEALS AND REMEDIES AFTER CONVICTION
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 177.255 (2026)

Court to give judgment without regard to technical errors

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 177.255  Court to give judgment without regard to technical errors.  After hearing the appeal, the Court shall give judgment without regard to technical error or defect which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1446)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases, 1970–2010 · leading case: Rhyne v. State, 38 P.3d 163 (Nev. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rhyne v. State, 38 P.3d 163 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 2× “598; see also NRS 177.255 (the court shall give judgment without regard to technical error or defect which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties).”
Deutscher v. State, 601 P.2d 407 (Nev. 1979). · cites it 2× “In addition, there is overwhelming evidence of appellant's guilt as shown by appellant's possession of two blood-stained fifty dollar bills and testimony by the victim's husband that the victim had two fifty dollar bills on her person before she was killed.”
Abram v. State, 594 P.2d 1143 (Nev. 1979). · cites it 2× “NRS 177.255 and 178.598 refer to errors which do not affect the substantial rights of the accused.”
Ogden v. State, 607 P.2d 576 (Nev. 1980). · cites it 2× “In the context of this case, however, the failure does not require reversal since consideration of the entire record indicates neither a miscarriage of justice, nor prejudice to appellant's substantial rights.”
Dickson v. State, 822 P.2d 1122 (Nev. 1992). · cites it 2× “2d 275, 276 (1976); NRS 177.255. Accordingly, I reject the majority's conclusion to the contrary.”
Ramirez v. State, 235 P.3d 619 (Nev. 2010). “602; see also NRS 177.255. “Under th[is] standard, an error that is plain from a review of the record does not require reversal unless the defendant demonstrates that the error affected his or her substantial rights, by causing actual prejudice or a miscarriage of justice.”
Shults v. State, 616 P.2d 388 (Nev. 1980). “See NRS 177.255. The remaining contentions are without merit.”
Qualls v. State, 961 P.2d 765 (Nev. 1998). “2 Moreover, NRS 177.255 requires this court to “give judgment without regard to technical error or defect which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”
Kelso v. State, 588 P.2d 1035 (Nev. 1979). “NRS 177.255. 2. Appellant’s second contention is the court erred in not recognizing its inherent discretion to order discovery of materials.”
Hendee v. State, 557 P.2d 275 (Nev. 1976). “At trial, the district court allowed a Reno police officer to testify that the pistol used in perpetration of the crimes was reported stolen in January, 1974. Appellants contend we are compelled to reverse because the district court erred in admitting this irrelevant,…”
Van Valkenberg v. State, 594 P.2d 707 (Nev. 1979). “040(l)(b); NRS 177.255. Similarly, we decline to review the propriety of the instruction appellant now asserts to be misleading because the record indicates appellant’s trial counsel not only failed to object to the instruction, but agreed to it.”
Obermeyer v. State, 625 P.2d 95 (Nev. 1981). “” NRS 177.255 provides that, “[a]fter hearing the appeal, the court shall give judgment without regard to technical error or defect which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
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.