Revises provisions relating to the death penalty. (BDR 14-1110)
Summary
SB350 revises Nevada’s death penalty procedures by lengthening the time between a death sentence and the scheduled execution date. Under current law, the initial execution warrant must set a week for execution 60 to 90 days after judgment, and a replacement warrant must set execution 15 to 30 days after issuance. This bill changes both timeframes so that the appointed week must fall no sooner than 120 days and no later than 180 days after judgment or after a new warrant is issued.
The bill also adds a rule for cases where an earlier execution warrant is already in force when a new warrant is issued. In that situation, the new warrant must still set execution for a week that is 120 to 180 days from the latest previously appointed execution date. The measure amends Nevada Revised Statutes 176.345 and 176.495, which govern the issuance of death warrants and the timing of executions, and it applies to the court, the Attorney General or district attorney, the sheriff, and the Director of the Department of Corrections.
Impact
SB350 directly amends Nevada’s criminal procedure statutes governing capital punishment, extending the minimum and maximum execution-warrant timelines and thereby delaying when a death sentence may be carried out. It changes NRS 176.345 and NRS 176.495, increasing the scheduling window for both original and replacement death warrants and requiring courts to use the longer timeframe in cases with prior warrants still in effect. The practical effect is to give more time between sentencing, warrant issuance, and execution, affecting prosecutors, courts, correctional officials, and condemned prisoners.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill had meaningful but not unanimous support. It passed the Senate 13-8 and the Assembly 28-14, indicating a majority in both chambers but a clear partisan or policy divide. With no committee transcript available, the recorded votes are the best indicator of sentiment, and they show that the bill was supported by enough members to advance while still drawing substantial opposition.
Contention
The main point of contention is the policy choice to lengthen death-penalty timelines. Supporters likely viewed the change as providing more time for legal review, administrative preparation, or orderly scheduling of executions, while opponents likely objected to any change that facilitates or normalizes capital punishment or alters existing safeguards. Because the bill concerns the death penalty itself, disagreement likely centered on broader moral and criminal-justice views rather than technical drafting issues.