NRS
7.135 Reimbursement for expenses; employment of investigative, expert
or other services.
1. An attorney who is selected pursuant to
NRS 7.115 to represent a defendant is
entitled, in addition to the fee provided by NRS
7.125 for the attorney’s services, to be reimbursed for expenses reasonably
incurred by the attorney in representing the defendant and may employ such
investigative, expert or other services as may be necessary for an adequate
defense:
(a) In a county whose population is less than
100,000, subject to the prior approval of the Department or its designee and in
compliance with the plan of the county for the provision of indigent defense
services; or
(b) In a county whose population is 100,000 or
more, in compliance with the plan of the county for the provision of indigent
defense services.
2. If a claim for compensation and
expenses made pursuant to subsection 1 is denied, the claim may be:
(a) Certified by the trial judge of the court, or
by the magistrate if the services were rendered in connection with a case
disposed of entirely before the magistrate, as necessary to provide fair
compensation for services of an unusual character or duration; and
(b) Approved by the presiding judge of the
judicial district in which the attorney was appointed or, if there is no
presiding judge, by the district judge who holds seniority in years of service
in office.
(Added to NRS by 1975,
1155; A 1981,
875; 1983,
110; 2003,
443; 2021,
2264)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case:
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985).
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985).
· cites it 2× “2d 876 (1978) (discretion to appoint psychiatrist rests with trial court); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.135 (1983); N. H. Rev.”
State v. Touchet, 642 So. 2d 1213 (La. 1994).
· cites it 2× “With the exception of those sentiments set forth herein, I concur in the majority opinion, and I concur in the result therein.”
Gallego v. State, 23 P.3d 227 (Nev. 2001).
“49 See NRS 7.135 (providing for reimbursement for “such investigative, expert or other services as may be necessary for an adequate defense”); cf.”
Sonner v. State, 930 P.2d 707 (Nev. 1996).
· cites it 2× “The court’s decision was based in part on an affidavit from a neurologist who felt that subjecting Sonner to additional tests was unnecessary because EEG’s and a BAER test taken a few days previously revealed no organic brain damage.”
Moore v. State, 889 A.2d 325 (Md. 2005).
“Several states have statutes requiring an ex parte hearing when an indigent defendant requests appointment of an expert.”
Mark Rogers v. James Dzurenda, 25 F.4th 1171 (9th Cir. 2022).
“24 Nevada pays for expert services for indigent defendants “as may be necessary for an adequate defense,” see Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.135 (1981), as do most, if not all states.”
Addison v. State, 917 A.2d 1200 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2007).
“§ 40-14-207(b) (2003); Nev.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 7.135 (Michie 1998); N.”
Wilson v. State, 771 P.2d 583 (Nev. 1989).
“Furthermore, Forman failed to take advantage of NRS 7.135 which permits court-appointed attorneys to employ investigators to assist them in preparing their client’s defense.”
Guevara-Pontifes (Brandon) Vs. State, 472 P.3d 195 (Nev. 2020).
“Guevara-Pontifes does not allege that any specific message was mistranslated and does not show that counsel's insisting on the messages being interpreted by a certified interpreter would have led to a reasonable probability of a different outcome. The district court therefore…”
Foster (John) v. Sheriff (Nev. 2017).
“The record shows that a State trooper testified for the defense at trial about the presence of yaw marks and their cause (that Foster had turned his truck away from Deputy Collier's direction before the collision), and thus an expert's testimony to that effect would have been…”
Titus (Craig) v. State (Nev. 2018).
“Titus is mistaken; NRS 7.135 provides that an attorney may file an ex parte application for reasonably necessary investigative services, and the statute SUPREME COURT applies in postconviction proceedings.”
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.