Opinion ID: 1152979
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Whether the defendant's right to due process of law was violated when the trial court failed to continue the arraignment as statutorily mandated under NRS 172.225(4).

Text: Lisle contends that his right to due process of law was violated when the district court refused to grant his motion for a continuance of his arraignment. NRS 172.225(4) provides that any defendant to whom a copy [of the grand jury transcript] has not been delivered is entitled upon motion to a continuance of his arraignment until a date 10 days after he actually receives a copy. Lisle did not receive a copy of the grand jury transcript before his arraignment. Lisle has failed to show any prejudice resulting from the district court's failure to grant a continuance of his arraignment. See Snyder v. State, 103 Nev. 275, 280, 738 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1987) (finding that defendant's failure to plead at a formal arraignment did not deprive him of any substantial right, nor did it change the course of his trial). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court's failure to comply with NRS 172.225(4) did not deny Lisle his right to due process of law.