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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 178.602 (2026)

Plain error

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 178.602  Plain error.  Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1458)

RECORDS

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 120 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: McConnell v. State, 102 P.3d 606 (Nev. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McConnell v. State, 102 P.3d 606 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 10× “[18] See NRS 178.602 ("Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”
Valdez v. State, 196 P.3d 465 (Nev. 2008). · cites it 6× “3d 93, 95 (2003) (explaining that failure to object to a jury instruction precludes appellate review except in circumstances amounting to plain error under NRS 178.602). [46] Id.; see also Olano, 507 U.”
Green v. State, 80 P.3d 93 (Nev. 2003). · cites it 3× “We therefore hold that this error did not constitute “plain error” under NRS 178.602, and we affirm Green’s conviction.”
Blake v. State, 121 P.3d 567 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 4× “3d 227, 239 (2001); see NRS 178.602 ("Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”
Belcher, Jr. (norman) Vs. State (death Penalty-direct), 2020 NV 31 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 4× “See NRS 178.602; Green, 119 Nev. at 545, 80 P.”
Hernandez v. State, 50 P.3d 1100 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 2× “21 Under NRS 178.602, this court may nevertheless address a claim if Hernandez can show that it was plain error that affected his substantial rights.”
Gallego v. State, 23 P.3d 227 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 2× “29 See NRS 178.602 (“Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”
State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 112 P.3d 1070 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 2× “NRS 178.602 expressly provides this court with the discretion on direct appeal to consider plain error despite a failure to preserve the issue at trial or to raise the issue on appeal.”
Tavares v. State, 30 P.3d 1128 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 2× “2 See NRS 178.602 (“Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”
Gaxiola v. State, 119 P.3d 1225 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 2× “3d 93, 95 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted) (footnotes omitted); see also NRS 178.602. U.S. v. Weintraub, 273 F.3d 139 , 152 (2d Cir.”
Jeremias v. State, 412 P.3d 43 (Nev. 2018). “NRS 178.602 (explaining when an unpreserved error "may be noticed").”
Rowland v. State, 39 P.3d 114 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 2× “1037 (1996); see also NRS 178.602. 3 Oade v. State, 114 Nev 619, 624, 960 P.”
Show all 120 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.