USA Statutes : nevada
Title : Title 04 - WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE
Chapter : CHAPTER 48 - ADMISSIBILITY GENERALLY
As used in this chapter,
“relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make the
existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the
action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 780)
1. All relevant evidence is admissible, except:
(a) As otherwise provided by this title;
(b) As limited by the Constitution of the United States or of the
State of Nevada; or
(c) Where a statute limits the review of an administrative
determination to the record made or evidence offered before that tribunal.
2. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 780)
1. Although relevant, evidence is not admissible if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of
confusion of the issues or of misleading the jury.
2. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by considerations of undue delay, waste
of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
3. Evidence of another act or crime which is so closely related to
an act in controversy or a crime charged that an ordinary witness cannot
describe the act in controversy or the crime charged without referring to
the other act or crime shall not be excluded, but at the request of an
interested party, a cautionary instruction shall be given explaining the
reason for its admission.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 780; A 1979, 37)
1. The testimony of a witness who previously has undergone
hypnosis to recall events that are the subject matter of the testimony is
admissible if:
(a) The witness, or the parent or guardian of the witness if he is
a minor, gave informed consent to the hypnosis;
(b) The person who induced the hypnosis is:
(1) A provider of health care;
(2) A clinical social worker who is licensed pursuant to
chapter 641B of NRS; or
(3) An officer or employee or former officer or employee of
a law enforcement agency,
Ê who is trained in forensic hypnosis and who is not otherwise currently
involved in the investigation of a case or action in which the witness is
a victim, witness or defendant;
(c) Before the hypnosis was induced, a written record was made that
includes, without limitation:
(1) A description of the subject matter of the hypnosis as
provided by the witness; and
(2) The information that was provided to the hypnotist
concerning the subject matter of the hypnosis;
(d) The entire session at which the hypnosis was induced was
electronically recorded by audio or video recording equipment, including,
without limitation, any interview that was conducted before or after the
hypnosis was induced;
(e) The recording of the entire session at which the hypnosis was
induced was made available by the party who produced the witness to each
party involved in the case, pursuant to the discovery procedures as
provided in NRS 174.235 to 174.295
, inclusive, the Nevada Rules of Civil
Procedure or the Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure, depending upon
the nature of the proceedings; and
(f) The hypnotist and the witness were the only persons present
during the session of hypnosis unless the hypnotist or a law enforcement
officer who is investigating the criminal case, if any, determined that
it was necessary for one of the following persons to be present during
the session:
(1) A parent or guardian of a witness who is a minor; or
(2) An artist employed by a law enforcement agency.
2. The court, on its own motion or that of a party, may exclude
the testimony of a person who previously has undergone hypnosis to recall
events which are the subject matter of the testimony if the court
determines that such testimony is unreliable or is otherwise inadmissible.
3. The court shall instruct the jury to exercise caution when
considering the reliability of the testimony of a person who previously
has undergone hypnosis to recall events that are the subject matter of
the testimony.
4. The provisions of this section do not limit:
(a) The ability of a party to attack the credibility of a witness
who previously has undergone hypnosis to recall events that are the
subject matter of his testimony; or
(b) The legal grounds upon which to admit or exclude the testimony
of such a witness.
5. As used in this section, “provider of health care” has the
meaning ascribed to it in NRS 629.031 .
(Added to NRS by 1997, 828)
1. Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of his character is
not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity
therewith on a particular occasion, except:
(a) Evidence of his character or a trait of his character offered
by an accused, and similar evidence offered by the prosecution to rebut
such evidence;
(b) Evidence of the character or a trait of character of the victim
of the crime offered by an accused, subject to the procedural
requirements of NRS 48.069 where
applicable, and similar evidence offered by the prosecution to rebut such
evidence; and
(c) Unless excluded by NRS 50.090 , evidence of the character of a witness,
offered to attack or support his credibility, within the limits provided
by NRS 50.085 .
2. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to
prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in
conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes,
such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 781; A 1975, 1131)
1. In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of
character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to
reputation or in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry
may be made into specific instances of conduct.
2. In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person
is an essential element of a charge, claim or defense, proof of specific
instances of his conduct may be made on direct or cross-examination.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 781; A 1979, 25)
1. Evidence of the habit of a person or the routine practice of an
organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence
of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or
organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or
routine practice.
2. Habit or routine practice may be proved by testimony in the
form of an opinion or by specific instances of conduct sufficient in
number to warrant a finding that the habit existed or that the practice
was routine.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 781; A 1973, 25)
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, evidence of
domestic violence and expert testimony concerning the effect of domestic
violence, including, without limitation, the effect of physical,
emotional or mental abuse, on the beliefs, behavior and perception of the
alleged victim of the domestic violence that is offered by the
prosecution or defense is admissible in a criminal proceeding for any
relevant purpose, including, without limitation, when determining:
(a) Whether a defendant is excepted from criminal liability
pursuant to subsection 7 of NRS 194.010 , to show the state of mind of the defendant.
(b) Whether a defendant in accordance with NRS 200.200 has killed another in self-defense, toward the
establishment of the legal defense.
2. Expert testimony concerning the effect of domestic violence may
not be offered against a defendant pursuant to subsection 1 to prove the
occurrence of an act which forms the basis of a criminal charge against
the defendant.
3. As used in this section, “domestic violence” means the
commission of any act described in NRS 33.018 .
(Added to NRS by 1993, 1107; A 1995, 2466; 2001, 1698 ; 2001 Special Session, 123 ; 2003, 74 , 1479 )
In any
prosecution for sexual assault or for attempt to commit or conspiracy to
commit a sexual assault, if the accused desires to present evidence of
any previous sexual conduct of the victim of the crime to prove the
victim’s consent:
1. The accused must first submit to the court a written offer of
proof, accompanied by a sworn statement of the specific facts that he
expects to prove and pointing out the relevance of the facts to the issue
of the victim’s consent.
2. If the court finds that the offer of proof is sufficient, the
court shall order a hearing out of the presence of the jury, if any, and
at the hearing allow the questioning of the victim regarding the offer of
proof.
3. At the conclusion of the hearing, if the court determines that
the offered evidence:
(a) Is relevant to the issue of consent; and
(b) Is not required to be excluded under NRS 48.035 ,
Ê the court shall make an order stating what evidence may be introduced
by the accused and the nature of the questions which he is permitted to
ask. The accused may then present evidence or question the victim
pursuant to the order.
(Added to NRS by 1975, 1131; A 1977, 1630; 1991, 125)
1. In any prosecution for sexual assault, the district attorney
may, by written motion upon reasonable prior notice to the accused, move
to exclude evidence of the victim’s address and telephone number. The
court may order that such evidence be excluded from the proceedings if
the court finds that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by
the creation of substantial danger to the victim.
2. This section does not limit the defendant’s right to discover
or investigate such evidence.
(Added to NRS by 1977, 1630)
Evidence is not inadmissible solely because it is
evidence of transactions or conversations with or the actions of a
deceased person.
(Added to NRS by 1981, 411)
Except as limited by this section, in addition to the matters made
admissible by NRS 179.465 , the contents
of any communication lawfully intercepted under the laws of the United
States or of another jurisdiction before, on or after July 1, 1981, if
the interception took place within that jurisdiction, and any evidence
derived from such a communication, are admissible in any action or
proceeding in a court or before an administrative body of this State,
including, without limitation, the Nevada Gaming Commission and the State
Gaming Control Board. Matter otherwise privileged under this title does
not lose its privileged character by reason of any interception.
(Added to NRS by 1981, 163)
1. When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken
previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of
the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable
conduct in connection with the event.
2. This section does not require the exclusion of evidence of
subsequent remedial measures when offered for another purpose, such as
proving ownership, control, feasibility of precautionary measures, or
impeachment.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 781)
1. Evidence of:
(a) Furnishing or offering or promising to furnish; or
(b) Accepting or offering or promising to accept,
Ê a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a
claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not
admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its
amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations
is likewise not admissible.
2. This section does not require exclusion when the evidence is
offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a
witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to
obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 781)
1. A meeting held to further the resolution of a dispute may be
closed at the discretion of the mediator.
2. The proceedings of the mediation session must be regarded as
settlement negotiations, and no admission, representation or statement
made during the session, not otherwise discoverable or obtainable, is
admissible as evidence or subject to discovery.
3. A mediator is not subject to civil process requiring the
disclosure of any matter discussed during the mediation proceedings.
(Added to NRS by 1991, 919; A 1993, 1213)
Evidence of
furnishing or offering or promising to pay medical, hospital or similar
expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible to prove liability for
the injury.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 782)
1. Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn, or of an offer
to plead guilty to the crime charged or any other crime is not admissible
in a criminal proceeding involving the person who made the plea or offer.
2. Evidence of a plea of nolo contendere or of an offer to plead
nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime is not admissible
in a civil or criminal proceeding involving the person who made the plea
or offer.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 782; A 1995, 2466; 2003, 1479 )
1. Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability
is not admissible upon the issue whether he acted negligently or
otherwise wrongfully.
2. This section does not require the exclusion of evidence of
insurance against liability when it is relevant for another purpose, such
as proof of agency, ownership or control, or bias or prejudice of a
witness.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 782)
