In the absence of a rule or statute mandating disclosure of jury background information from the prosecution to the defense, no such obligation exists. If policy considerations dictate that defendants should be allowed to see prosecution-developed jury dossiers, then a court rule should be proposed, considered and adopted as implicitly authorized by NRS 179A.100(7)(j). Such a procedure would allow the court to better assess the “scope of disparity, impact on juror privacy interests, the need to protect work product, practicality, and fundamental fairness
than this case, with its limited record and arguments.”
 This is the majority opinion. A minority of justices vigorously dissented, asserting that the Court has a duty to correct practices of inequality between adverse parties that reflect on the fairness of the criminal process. Accordingly, the minority asserts the prosecution should be required to disclose all veniremember information such that Artiga-Morales’ conviction should be reversed and a new trial granted.
Lee, Janine, "Summary of Artiga-Morales v. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 77" (2014). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 816.