Evidence Commons^™

Angel Gutierrez-Zacatenco V. Rosa Herrera, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (Aug. 13, 2026), Sana Azim

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Incomplete medical records can be authenticated for admissibility purposes through a sufficient fact-specific demonstration of authenticity.

Zhang V. Zhang, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (June 18, 2026), Nathan Mackay

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Even when a party has violated their disclosure requirements, a district court must analyze the Young factors before issuing a discovery sanction that effectively terminates the case with prejudice.

Byron Aaron Garcia V. State Of Nevada, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (Jun. 11, 2026), Lauren Jung

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A probationer is not denied due process when the district court relies on the totality of everything, including the preliminary hearing transcript, prior police investigation report, and probation violation report and police report to revoke probation and impose a suspended sentence.

Richt V. State Of Nevada, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 32 (April 30, 2026), Vanessa Arias

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A defendant must establish a foundation for a self-defense claim before being allowed to bring in evidence of the victim's character. If the defendant wishes to admit evidence to support a self-defense claim it must be relevant. Lay witnesses are allowed to testify regarding their own perception.

Smith (Sophia) V. State, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 26, 587 P.3d 251 (Apr. 9, 2026), Karin Tidgewell

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In Smith (Sophia) v. State, the Nevada Supreme Court held that violations of NRS 200.5099(3) should be prosecuted as one count of elder exploitation per victim, regardless of the number of acts that occur against a single victim.

Matadamas-Serrano V. State, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (Mar. 5, 2026), Mary Shamon

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A district court does not commit reversible error by denying a Batson challenge at step one based on strike percentages alone, or by allowing a substitute coroner to give an independent opinion based on autopsy photographs.

Talley V. The State Of Nevada, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 61 (Dec. 04, 2025), Sabrina Richards

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

The Insufficiency Of Battered Women’S Syndrome Evidence And The Need For Resentencing Legislation For Criminalized Survivors Of Domestic Violence, Alice Samberg

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Transparency In Forensic Exams, Dorothy Sims, Chris Dove, Richard Frederick

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Alternative Evidence Rules For Arbitration, Henry Zhuhao Wang

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Preventing A (Replication) Crisis In The Courtroom, Kaitlin Mccormick-Huhn

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Brown (Larry) V. State Of Nevada, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (June 23, 2022), Anne-Greyson Long

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In this appeal, the Court considered whether a jury may consider footwear impression evidence without the aid of expert testimony. The Court determined it was proper here. The Court also considered whether the district court violated the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause by allowing a witness to testify via a two-way video and limiting cross-examination to protect proprietary trade secrets. The Court determined that the district court failed to make express findings under Lipitz. The Court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting witness testimony. No reversal was granted, and the court …

The “Fool’S Gold” Standard Of Confession Evidence: How Intersecting, Disadvantaged Identities Heighten The Risk Of False Confession, Nicole Weis

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Use Of Expert Witnesses In Gambling Cases, Robert M. Jarvis

UNLV Gaming Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Continuous Burdens Of Proof, Emily Spottswood

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Convenience Or Confidentiality: Nevada’S Digital Data Laws In The Age Of Always-Listening Devices, E. Sebastian Cate-Cribari

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Clergy-Penitent Privilege: The Role Of Clergy In Perpetuating And Preventing Domestic Violence, Kami Orton

Nevada Law Journal Forum

Domestic violence occurs at alarming rates in all socioeconomic levels, races, locations, sexual orientations, and professions. Domestic violence occurs at similar frequencies among religious and non-religious individuals. Clergy play an important role in religious communities. The clergy-penitent privilege was created to protect the relationship between clergy and communicant and prevents clergy from testifying about spiritual communications. However, the privilege is currently an absolute privilege which is unnecessary and hurts victims and survivors of domestic violence. Additionally, the statutorily written privilege is not aligned with the application and practice of the privilege. Practice indicates clergy tend to desire to testify and …

Justice In A Brave New World?, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

As science fiction has become reality, we should consider the implications of our new technologies for our system of justice. In addition to DNA, we are now regularly using cameras, geo-tracking, facial recognition software, brain scans, computers, and much more to discern and record our physical and mental surroundings. Existing technology and more we cannot yet imagine will increasingly take the place of often unreliable evidence, such as that provided by eyewitnesses. Yet, we have given far too little thought as to how these advances should impact our civil and criminal dispute resolution systems.

Historically, many justice systems have emphasized …

Toll V. Dist. Ct. (Gilman), 135 Nev., Advanced Opinion 58 (December 5, 2019), Gabrielle Boliou

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A blogger claimed that his sources are protected under NRS 49.275. The court held that digital media is protected, but did not address whether a blogger is protected. The district court did not err in allowing discovery to determine whether the blogger acted with actual malice.

Valentine V. State Of Nevada, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 62 (Dec. 19, 2019), Riley Coggins

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that evidentiary hearings are appropriate on fair-cross-section challenges when the defendant makes specific allegations that, if true, would be sufficient to constitute a prima facie violation of the state’s fair-cross-section requirement. The Court also briefly discussed appellant’s claims of insufficient evidence and prosecutorial misconduct regarding DNA evidence. The Court found that neither claim warranted a new trial.

Gathrite V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (Nov. 7, 2019), Skylar Arakawa-Pamphilon

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

For purposes of NRS 172.135(2), evidence that has been suppressed in justice court proceedings on a felony complaint is not “legal evidence,” and therefore, may not be presented to a grand jury. The Court will grant an exception to this rule if the suppression was reversed before the grand jury proceedings.

Menendez-Cordero V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Jul 25, 2019), Nick Hagenkord

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court concluded that (1) the empanelment of an anonymous jury does not, without actual prejudice, infringe on a defendant’s constitutional rights and the district court satisfied the abuse-of-discretion standard adopted; (2) the district court need not instruct a jury that is responsible for imposing a sentence in a first-degree murder case under NRS 175.552 about the effects of a deadly weapon enhancement; and (3) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to admit Menendez-Cordero’s threats as consciousness-of-guilt evidence.

Franks (Kenneth) V. State, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 1 (Jan. 3, 2019), Scott Whitworth

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court reviewed whether a district court’s decision to allow the State to introduce prior incidents of uncharged sexual acts as evidence of the defendant’s propensity for committing sexual offenses violated NRS 48.045(3) and concluded such evidence as long as it is first evaluated for relevance and its heightened risk of unfair prejudice.

Mathews V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (Aug. 23, 2018), Christi Dupont

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court clarified the requirements for the introduction of an expert witness under NRS 50.275. Moreover, the Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion when it improperly applied the Hallmark factors and disqualified Dr. Johnson from testifying. Accordingly, the Court granted the defendant a new trial.

Richard V. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 64 (Aug. 23, 2018), Kaila Patrick

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that a declarant must have testified and have been subject to cross-examination about a specific out-of-court statement for it to be excluded from the definition of hearsay as a prior inconsistent statement or identification. Further, the Court held that the errors of admission made by the district court were harmless.

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari, Montana V. Tipton, Leslie C. Griffin, Marci A. Hamilton, Paul G. Cassell

Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Abid V. Abid, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 94 (Dec. 7, 2017) (En Banc), Carmen Gilbert

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the district court properly exercised its discretion in allowing illegally recorded conversations to be used by a court appointed child psychologist to evaluate a child’s welfare in a custody case.

The Cost Of Ab 193: Constitutional Guarantees Sacrificed For Ineffective Means, Paul George

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Mayo V. Eigh. Jud, Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Nov. 23, 2016), Alex Velto

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court found that the district court did not err when it found no violation of NRS 172.145(2). The Court interpreted NRS 172.145(2), which creates a duty on district attorneys to submit evidence to a grand jury if they are “aware” it will “explain away the charge.” The Court determined that a district attorney must be “aware” evidence has exculpatory value before there is a duty to present the evidence to a grand jury. The district attorney is not obligated to present exculpatory evidence it possesses but does not recognize as exculpatory. In the case at issue, because the district …

Khoury V. Seastrand, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 28, 2016), Ronni Boskovich

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered three consolidated appeals from a district court judgment, pursuant to a jury verdict, and post-judgment orders awarding costs and denying a new trial in a personal injury action. While the Court addressed numerous issues, the following three questions comprised the bulk of the consolidated appeals: (1) whether an attorney may ask prospective jurors questions concerning a specific verdict amount to determine potential bias or prejudice; (2) whether repeatedly asking questions about that specific amount results in jury indoctrination warranting a mistrial; and (3) when a district court abuses its discretion in dismissing jurors for cause under Jitnan …