Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 178 - GENERAL PROVISIONS

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 178.388

Presence of defendant

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 178.388  Presence of defendant.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided in this title, the defendant must be present at the arraignment, at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence. A corporation may appear by counsel for all purposes.

      2.  In prosecutions for offenses not punishable by death:

      (a) The defendant’s voluntary absence after the trial has been commenced in the defendant’s presence must not prevent continuing the trial to and including the return of the verdict.

      (b) If the defendant was present at the trial through the time the defendant pleads guilty or guilty but mentally ill or is found guilty or guilty but mentally ill but at the time of sentencing is incarcerated in another jurisdiction, the defendant may waive the right to be present at the sentencing proceedings and agree to be sentenced in this State in his or her absence. The defendant’s waiver is valid only if it is:

             (1) Made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily after consulting with an attorney licensed to practice in this State;

             (2) Signed and dated by the defendant and notarized by a notary public or judicial officer;

             (3) Signed and dated by the defendant’s attorney after it has been signed by the defendant and notarized; and

             (4) Accompanied by a waiver of the issuance and service of a warrant of arrest and all other procedures incidental to extradition proceedings.

      3.  In prosecutions for offenses punishable by fine or by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both, the court, with the written consent of the defendant, may permit arraignment, plea, trial and imposition of sentence in the defendant’s absence, if the court determines that the defendant was fully aware of the applicable constitutional rights when the defendant gave consent.

      4.  The presence of the defendant is not required at the arraignment or any preceding stage if the court has provided for the use of a closed-circuit television to facilitate communication between the court and the defendant during the proceeding. If closed-circuit television is provided for, members of the news media may observe and record the proceeding from both locations unless the court specifically provides otherwise.

      5.  The defendant’s presence is not required at the settling of jury instructions.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1450; A 1969, 9; 1987, 2025; 1993, 933; 1995, 2457; 2003, 1470; 2007, 1426; 2015, 307)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2021 · leading case: State v. Sargent
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sargent (2006) nev · cites it 9× “Sargent’s counsel argued that under NRS 178.388, 1 Sargent is only required to be present at arraignment, trial, and sentencing and that nothing in Nevada law requires his personal presence at the preliminary hearing.”
CHAPARRO (OSBALDO) VS. STATE (2021) nev · cites it 3× “337, 338 (1970); NRS 178.388(1). A sentencing hearing is a critical stage of the 2Chaparro also raises a violation of his confrontation rights.”
Rose v. State (2007) nev “27 NRS 178.388(1). 28 Gallego v. State, 117 Nev.”
Thomas v. State (1998) nev · cites it 2× “Thomas asserts that NRS 178.388(1) was violated because he was not present at the June 13, 1997 hearing.”
People v. Stroud (2004) ill “§ 15A — 941(b) (LexisNexis 2002) (plea in a noncapital case may be taken by audio and video transmission); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 178.388 (4) (Lexis 2001) (presence of defendant for plea at arraignment is not required if the court has provided for the use of closed-circuit…”
Davidson v. State (2008) nev “3d 408, 417 (2007) (citing NRS 178.388(1)). 24 See NRS 207.010(l)(a).”
Prince v. State (2002) nev “CONCLUSION The Interstate Agreement on Detainers does not apply to defendants who have been adjudicated guilty, and are awaiting sentencing. Because the delay here did not violate Prince’s rights under the Agreement or other constitutional or statutory rights, we affirm the…”
Reynolds (Scott) v. State (2018) nev “While it is undisputed that the sentencing hearing 'Pursuant to NRAP 34(0(1), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted in this appeal.”
Reynolds v. State (2018) nev “Reynolds argues that the district court violated his rights to be present and have counsel present at every critical stage of the proceedings by increasing his sentence without notice and outside of his presence.”
State v. Okroi (Patrick) (2013) nev “In Sargent we determined that NRS 178.388 does not apply to preliminary hearings, 122 Nev.”
People v. Stroud (2004) ill “§15A–941(b) (LexisNexis 2002) (plea in a noncapital case may be taken by audio and video transmission); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §178.388 (4) (Lexis 2001) (presence of defendant for plea at arraignment is not required if the court has provided for the use of close circuit…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 178.388(1) — 6 cases
CHAPARRO (OSBALDO) VS. STATE (2021) nev “337, 338 (1970); NRS 178.388(1). A sentencing hearing is a critical stage of the 2Chaparro also raises a violation of his confrontation rights.”
Rose v. State (2007) nev “27 NRS 178.388(1). 28 Gallego v. State, 117 Nev.”
Thomas v. State (1998) nev “Thomas asserts that NRS 178.388(1) was violated because he was not present at the June 13, 1997 hearing.”
Davidson v. State (2008) nev “3d 408, 417 (2007) (citing NRS 178.388(1)). 24 See NRS 207.010(l)(a).”
Reynolds (Scott) v. State (2018) nev “While it is undisputed that the sentencing hearing 'Pursuant to NRAP 34(0(1), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted in this appeal.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 178.388(2)(b) — 1 case
Prince v. State (2002) nev “CONCLUSION The Interstate Agreement on Detainers does not apply to defendants who have been adjudicated guilty, and are awaiting sentencing. Because the delay here did not violate Prince’s rights under the Agreement or other constitutional or statutory rights, we affirm the…”
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.