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.

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 …

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.

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.

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 …

State V. Carroll, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Apr. 7, 2016), Jessie Folkestad

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Defendant Deangelo Carroll appealed from a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon. The Supreme Court of Nevada found the district court erred in denying Carroll’s motion to suppress his statements to police because the police subjected Carroll to a custodial interrogation, without advising him of his Miranda rights. The Court affirmed however, finding the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rish V. Simao, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Mar. 17, 2016), Heather Caliguire

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court held that the District Court wrongly excluded evidence of low-impact defense when it required a biomechanical expert testify about the nature of the accident, erroneously interpreting Hallmark v. Eldgridge Instead, Hallmark requires sufficient foundation for admission of testimony and evidence, specifically excluding a biomechanical expert’s testimony under NRS 50.275. The Court additionally held that the District Court erred when it ultimately struck the defendant’s answer for violations of the pretrial order precluding defendant from raising a minor or low impact defense.

Quisano V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (February 18, 2016), Michael Hua

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

This court affirmed an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to an Alford plea, of voluntary manslaughter and child abuse, neglect, or endangerment with substantial bodily harm holding:

(1) Brady violations do not occur when the evidence in question is not favorable to the defendant;

(2) Prosecutors have a strict duty to disclose under their own open-file policy until sentencing proceedings; and,

(3) Media outlets require a written by the district court to electronically cover proceedings unless nonconstitutional or harmless error results in such coverage.

Barber V. State, 131 Nev. Adv, Op. 103 (December 31, 2015), Ronni N. Boscovich

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered an appeal from a district court conviction. The Court reversed the Eighth Judicial District Court’s judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict of burglary and grand larceny. The juvenile court retains jurisdiction over Barber because the legislation did not include language regarding jurisdiction stripping or dismissal requirements. However, the Court reversed the judgment because the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to support Barber’s conviction.

Moultrie V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 93 (Dec. 24, 2015), Cassandra Ramey

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court of Appeals determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to file an information by affidavit more than 15 days after the preliminary examination concluded, when the justice court committed an “egregious error,” and “the defendant was discharged but not prejudiced by the delay.” Further, the Court defines “egregious error” as when “a charge was erroneously dismissed or a defendant was erroneously discharged based on a magistrate’s error.” Due to the justice court’s egregious errors in the preliminary examination that resulted in appellant’s discharge, the Court found that the district court was …

Berry V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 96 (Dec. 24, 2015), Brittany L. Shipp

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The issue before the Court was an appeal from a district court order dismissing a post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court reversed and remanded holding that the district court improperly discounted the declarations in support of the appellant’s petition, which included a confession of another suspect, whom the petitioner implicated as the real perpetrator at trial. The Court held that these declarations were sufficient to merit discovery, and an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner Berry’s gateway actual innocence claim.

Valenti V. Nev. Dep’T Of Motor Vehicles, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Nov. 5, 2015), Shannon Diaz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that a “chemist” as defined by NRS § 50.320must be qualified as an expert in a Nevada court of record prior to the admission of his or her affidavit attesting to an individual’s blood-alcohol concentration in a driver’s license revocation hearing

Summary Of Guitron (Miguel) V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (May 21, 2015), Aleem Dhalla

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) the State presented sufficient evidence for a jury to convict Guitron of incest and sexual assault, (2) the district court did err by not allowing Guitron to introduce evidence of the victims sexual knowledge, but this error was harmless, (3) the district court did err refusing to give the jury Guitron’s requested inverse elements instruction, but this error was also harmless, and (4) Guitron could not show that the district court erred by denying his Batson challenge.

Summary Of Mitchell V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 63076 (Apr. 30 2015), Stacy Newman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Original petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to sustain the privileges asserted by a defendant doctor in a medical malpractice case to his personal counseling and treatment records was granted and denied in part. The court determined 1) Mitchell’s family and marital therapy records were privileged 2) Mitchell’s doctor-patient records were subject to NRS 49.245(3) patient-litigation exception, but 3) the doctor-patient records should have been reviewed in camera by the district court before discovery.

Summary Of Leavitt V. Siems, 130 Adv. Nev. Op. 54, Michael Paretti

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court concluded that: (1) expert alternative causation testimony is permissible; (2) ex parte communication, even when improper, only warrants a new trial when prejudice is established; and, (3) an employee’s default may not be used against an employer codefendant contesting liability.

Summary Of L.V. Dev. Assocs. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 37, Ryan Becklean

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined whether NRS 50.125 applies to depositions.

Summary Of Coleman V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 26, Ryan Becklean

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined three issues: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction of first-degree murder by child abuse; (2) whether NRS 51.345 is constitutional; and (3) whether NRS 51.345 was properly applied by the trial court to exclude testimony in this case.