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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 178.598 (2026)

Harmless error

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 178.598  Harmless error.  Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1458)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 161 cases (30 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Belcher, Jr. (norman) Vs. State (death Penalty-direct), 2020 NV 31 (Nev. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Belcher, Jr. (norman) Vs. State (death Penalty-direct), 2020 NV 31 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 4× “See NRS 178.598; Obermeyer v. State, 97 Nev. 158, 159, 625 P.”
McLellan v. State, 182 P.3d 106 (Nev. 2008). · cites it 2× “20 The failure of the district court to issue a limiting instruction will be reviewed for nonconstitutional error under NRS 178.598. 21 We have recognized that the standard set forth in NRS 178.”
Knipes v. State, 192 P.3d 1178 (Nev. 2008). · cites it 4× “We also conclude that the failure to properly administer the required procedural safeguards for juror questioning amounts to nonconstitutional trial error, and as such is subject to harmless-error review under NRS 178.598. In this case, the district court permitted jurors to ask…”
Tavares v. State, 30 P.3d 1128 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 2× “Instead, we will review future cases for *732 error under NRS 178.598, which provides that “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.”
Daniel v. State, 78 P.3d 890 (Nev. 2003). · cites it 2× “Violations of the rule are subject to harmless-error review under NRS 178.598. 52 Because it can be difficult to say whether lying is the only possible explanation for inconsistent testimony, we reject an exception to the rule on that ground.”
Rhyne v. State, 38 P.3d 163 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 2× “[33] See NRS 178.598; 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).”
Dickey v. State, 540 P.3d 442 (Nev. 2024). · cites it 6× “Any instruction to consider purposes for which admission was not granted constitutes an error subject to NRS 178.598 harmless error review. Allred v.”
Lord v. State, 806 P.2d 548 (Nev. 1991). · cites it 2× “Under these circumstances, we conclude that any error on this point was harmless under NRS 178.598. 2. Testimony of the victim's mother.”
Floyd v. State, 42 P.3d 249 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 2× “[46] See NRS 178.598 ("Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.”
Abbott v. State, 138 P.3d 462 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 2× “The mere fact that Abbott testified to similar preceding events as the victim does not corroborate that Abbott committed lewdness with the victim. Regarding the lack of physical evidence, Abbott is not using the lack of physical evidence as proof that he did not molest the…”
Domingues v. State, 917 P.2d 1364 (Nev. 1996). · cites it 2× “NRS 178.598; Chapman v. California, 386 U.”
Mathews v. State, 424 P.3d 634 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 2× “3d 765 , 772 (2004) (stating that "any error that does not affect a defendant's substantial rights shall be disregarded"); see also NRS 178.598. We conclude that it was not harmless, as "[t]he exclusion of a witness' testimony is prejudicial if there is a reasonable probability…”
Show all 161 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.