Investigators reconstructed an early-morning birth and abandonment before Taylour Sierra Dickinson abandoned her planned trial and entered a no-contest plea.
RENO, Nev. — Taylour Sierra Dickinson told investigators she did not know she was pregnant, panicked after unexpectedly giving birth and hoped someone would find the newborn she placed in a dumpster. More than a year later, those disputed circumstances will not be tested before a jury because Dickinson has pleaded no contest to attempted murder.
The July 29 plea in Washoe County District Court brought an abrupt end to the trial phase of a case built heavily around Dickinson’s own statements, a reconstructed timeline and the rescue of her infant son. Prosecutors agreed to dismiss a separate child abuse, neglect or endangerment charge. Dickinson, 29, is now scheduled for sentencing Oct. 7 and faces two to 20 years in Nevada state prison. The plea leaves some factual questions without a jury’s verdict on competing interpretations because no trial will be held.
Investigators’ account began in the early hours of July 5, 2025, before authorities knew that a crime might have occurred. Dickinson later told detectives she had been unaware of the pregnancy until she began experiencing pain and delivered a baby in a bathroom. Court testimony placed the birth at approximately 2:30 a.m. Authorities said Dickinson described using a towel to remove or retrieve the infant after the delivery. The prosecution’s evidence then followed what happened to the newborn during the period between birth and his eventual discovery hours later.
According to testimony at Dickinson’s bail hearing, investigators concluded that the newborn was wrapped and then placed inside a garbage bag. Authorities said Dickinson carried the bag to a dumpster serving the Sun Valley apartment complex at about 3:33 a.m. A detective testified about statements from Dickinson’s interview and evidence investigators obtained while putting together the timeline. By the time Dickinson returned inside, the baby had been left without direct adult care in the waste container. The infant was not discovered immediately.
The interview became more significant because investigators said Dickinson’s description of what she knew changed as questioning continued. At one point, according to the hearing account, she gave an explanation suggesting that she did not initially believe what she had discarded was a baby. Authorities said she later acknowledged knowing she had delivered an infant. Dickinson also told investigators she had been in shock and had not focused on whether the newborn was crying, breathing or moving. Those statements were presented by law enforcement as evidence; a jury never made findings about them.
Other statements addressed why she took the baby to the dumpster rather than another location. Investigators said Dickinson described the decision as her “best option” in the panic after the unexpected birth. She said she hoped someone passing through the area would find the newborn. She also told investigators she did not want more children and described her family as living paycheck to paycheck. Those explanations supplied context, but they also left prosecutors and defense attorneys with sharply important questions about intent that would ordinarily have been argued at trial.
The baby’s eventual rescue added another element to that question. A passerby heard the child crying from inside the dumpster and went into the container to remove him. First responders then took the newborn to Renown Regional Medical Center. The Washoe County Sheriff’s Office reported after Dickinson’s arrest that the child was healthy and doing well. Sheriff Darin Balaam credited the citizen’s intervention with saving the boy’s life. The fact that someone did find the infant was consistent with Dickinson’s claimed hope, but prosecutors still alleged that placing him there amounted to attempted murder.
That distinction was at the center of the criminal exposure Dickinson faced. A claim that a person hoped for a later rescue does not by itself determine whether the elements of an attempted crime were established. Prosecutors charged Dickinson based on the entire set of circumstances they said the evidence showed. Defense arguments and the state’s evidence would have been tested at a trial had Dickinson maintained her not-guilty plea. Instead, her no-contest plea allows the attempted-murder conviction to stand without requiring the state to persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Authorities moved quickly after the rescue. The sheriff’s office announced Dickinson’s arrest on July 7, 2025, on attempted murder and child abuse, neglect or endangerment allegations. District Attorney Chris Hicks announced formal charges two days later, and prosecutors successfully sought a $1 million cash-only bail. At that hearing, the court heard detailed testimony about the birth, the dumpster, Dickinson’s interview and investigators’ concerns about the circumstances. The judge also considered restrictions involving children as part of the bail decision.
A separate event from 2023 became part of those bail proceedings and increased scrutiny around Dickinson, though it did not produce a separate prosecution. The district attorney’s office said Dickinson had described suffering a miscarriage and placing a baby near or in a dumpster at another apartment complex. That child did not survive, according to reporting from the hearing. Prosecutors said the investigating agency did not submit a case for prosecution at that time because of the facts, circumstances and evidence available. No criminal charge was filed over the 2023 incident.
That distinction matters as the 2025 case moves toward punishment. The earlier episode may have been discussed in court, but Dickinson was not convicted of an offense arising from it. The conviction now awaiting sentence is attempted murder based on the July 2025 abandonment. The public record reviewed for this story does not establish that the 2023 incident was later charged or adjudicated. Treating the earlier account as a proven crime would go beyond what prosecutors themselves said when they disclosed it.
Another fact that appeared early in the official response was Nevada’s safe-haven law. The sheriff’s office and district attorney’s office both reminded the public after the arrest that parents have a lawful process for surrendering very young infants. Under state law, providers such as hospitals, public firefighting agencies and law enforcement agencies must take possession of a qualifying newborn voluntarily delivered by a parent who does not intend to return. The law applies to children who are, or appear to be, no more than 30 days old.
Safe-haven surrender can generally occur without requiring the parent to provide identifying information when there is no independent reasonable cause to believe the newborn was abused or neglected. The provider assumes responsibility for protecting the child’s immediate health and safety and makes the required notifications to child-welfare and law-enforcement authorities. Officials highlighted those provisions because the system offered a route for transferring an unwanted newborn directly into protected care. Dickinson did not use that process, according to the prosecution’s account.
For months, the case remained positioned for a conventional test of the state’s allegations. Dickinson pleaded not guilty in January 2026, and trial was scheduled for August. A trial could have required prosecutors to present the evidence underlying the timeline and interview while giving the defense an opportunity to challenge its meaning, reliability and legal significance. The plea agreement changed that. On July 29, Dickinson chose not to contest the attempted-murder charge, and prosecutors dropped the second count.
Nevada’s punishment statute now matters more than the evidentiary disputes that once pointed toward trial. An attempt to commit a category A felony is punishable as a category B felony with a prison term ranging from a minimum of two years to a maximum of 20 years. The range does not establish Dickinson’s final sentence, and the material reviewed for this story does not confirm what term either side will recommend. The sentencing judge will make that decision after the case returns to court.
The plea also means the legal record will end differently than it would have after a jury verdict. There will be a conviction and sentence, but not a trial resolving every disputed detail about Dickinson’s knowledge, intent and statements. Her explanations about an unknown pregnancy, panic, financial strain and hope of discovery remain part of the reported investigative history. The attempted-murder conviction, however, is no longer awaiting a jury’s decision.
Dickinson is due back in Washoe County District Court on Oct. 7, 2026. Until then, the case stands at the point created by her no-contest plea: the newborn survived, the second criminal count has been dismissed, attempted murder is the conviction before the court, and the remaining question is how much of Nevada’s two-to-20-year sentencing range the judge will impose.
Author note: Last updated August 30, 2026.