hearsay rule in Nevada

2021Thus, the testimony about the emails was not inadmissible hearsay, see Wallach v. State, 106 Nev. 470, 473 , 796 P.2d 224, 227 (1990) (explaining that the hearsay rule does not apply when a statement is not offered to show the truth of the matter asserted but rather to show the statement's effect on the listener), and the probative value was not outweighed by any prejudicial effect of the jury learning that the victim's mother encouraged her to recant the allegations.

2021Thus, the testimony about the emails was not inadmissible hearsay, see Wallach v. State, 106 Nev. 470, 473 , 796 P.2d 224, 227 (1990) (explaining that the hearsay rule does not apply when a statement is not offered to show the truth of the matter asserted but rather to show the statement's effect on the listener), and the probative value was not outweighed by any prejudicial effect of the jury learning that the victim's mother encouraged her to recant the allegations.

2020As to the hearsay instruction, Belcher acknowledges that the language is a correct statement of the law, as hearsay is generally admissible at a capital penalty hearing under NRS 175.552(3), and that neither the Confrontation Clause nor Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), apply to evidence admitted at a capital penalty hearing, see, e.g., Summers v. State, 122 Nev. 1326, 1332-33, 148 P.3d 778, 783 (2006).

2020As to the hearsay instruction, Belcher acknowledges that the language is a correct statement of the law, as hearsay is generally admissible at a capital penalty hearing under NRS 175.552(3), and that neither the Confrontation Clause nor Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), apply to evidence admitted at a capital penalty hearing, see, e.g., Summers v. State, 122 Nev. 1326, 1332-33 , 148 P.3d 778, 783 (2006).

1999See id. “[WJhere proffered hearsay has sufficient guarantees of reliability to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, the Confrontation Clause is satisfied.” Id.

1999See id. “[WJhere proffered hearsay has sufficient guarantees of reliability to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, the Confrontation Clause is satisfied.” Id.

2020However, "where constitutional rights directly affecting the ascertainment of guilt are implicated. the hearsay rule mav not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice." Chambers, 410 U.S. at 302; accord Coleman v. State, 130 Nev. 229, 239-42, 321 P.3d 901, 908-11 (2014).

2020However, "where constitutional rights directly affecting the ascertainment of guilt are implicated. the hearsay rule mav not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice." Chambers, 410 U.S. at 302; accord Coleman v. State, 130 Nev. 229, 239-42, 321 P.3d 901, 908-11 (2014).

2019See Browne v. State, 113 Nev. 305, 312 , 933 P.2d 187, 191 (1997) (noting that the rationale behind the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule is that a statement is more trustworthy if made contemporaneously with the event being described); see also Ramet v. State, 125 Nev. 195, 198 , 209 P.3d 268, 269 (2009) (reviewing a district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion).

2019See Browne v. State, 113 Nev. 305, 312 , 933 P.2d 187, 191 (1997) (noting that the rationale behind the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule is that a statement is more trustworthy if made contemporaneously with the event being described); see also Ramet v. State, 125 Nev. 195, 198 , 209 P.3d 268, 269 (2009) (reviewing a district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion).

2019See Wallach v. State, 106 Nev. 470, 473 , 796 P.2d 224, 226-27 (1990) (recognizing that the hearsay rule does not apply when the statement is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather for its effect on the listener); NRS 51.035 (defining hearsay); People v. King, 294 P.2d 972, 974-75 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956) (concluding that the hearsay rule did not apply when a statement was offered to show probable cause for a police officer's search of a premises).

2019See Wallach v. State, 106 Nev. 470, 473 , 796 P.2d 224, 226-27 (1990) (recognizing that the hearsay rule does not apply when the statement is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather for its effect on the listener); NRS 51.035 (defining hearsay); People v. King, 294 P.2d 972, 974-75 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956) (concluding that the hearsay rule did not apply when a statement was offered to show probable cause for a police officer's search of a premises).

1998Because the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause are not co-extensive, the Supreme Court has held that the Confrontation Clause "bars the admission of some evidence that would otherwise be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule." Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 814 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990).

1998Because the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause are not co-extensive, the Supreme Court has held that the Confrontation Clause "bars the admission of some evidence that would otherwise be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule." Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 814 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990).

2017We have held such opinion testimony does not violate the hearsay rule and is admissible even when it was based upon out-of-court statements "so long as the substance of those statements is not revealed to the jury" and the witness is "subject to cross-examination as to the existence of the statements." Browne v. State, 113 Nev. 305, 312 , 933 P.2d 187, 191 (1997) (citing Shults v. State, 96 Nev. 742, 747-48 , 616 P.2d 388, 392 (1980)). 'At trial, Amy claimed the statements were admissible as present sense impressions and as statements by a charged coconspirator.

2017We have held such opinion testimony does not violate the hearsay rule and is admissible even when it was based upon out-of-court statements "so long as the substance of those statements is not revealed to the jury" and the witness is "subject to cross-examination as to the existence of the statements." Browne v. State, 113 Nev. 305, 312 , 933 P.2d 187, 191 (1997) (citing Shults v. State, 96 Nev. 742, 747-48 , 616 P.2d 388, 392 (1980)). 'At trial, Amy claimed the statements were admissible as present sense impressions and as statements by a charged coconspirator.

1988The Rosoffs argue, however, that the logs comply with the business exception to the hearsay rule. 18 In Miranda v. State, 101 Nev. 562, 566 , 707 P.2d 1121, 1124 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1031 (1986), we noted that “the business records exception to the hearsay rule generally permits a party to introduce as evidence reports made during the regularly conducted course of business.” The district court concluded, however, that these logs were not made in the regular course of business.

1988The Rosoffs argue, however, that the logs comply with the business exception to the hearsay rule. 18 In Miranda v. State, 101 Nev. 562, 566 , 707 P.2d 1121, 1124 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1031 (1986), we noted that “the business records exception to the hearsay rule generally permits a party to introduce as evidence reports made during the regularly conducted course of business.” The district court concluded, however, that these logs were not made in the regular course of business.

2019See Browne v. State, 113 Nev. 305, 312 , 933 P.2d 187, 191 (1997) (noting that the rationale behind the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule is that a statement is more trustworthy if made contemporaneously with the event being described); see also Ramet v. State, 125 Nev. 195, 198 , 209 P.3d 268, 269 (2009) (reviewing a district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion).

2019See Browne v. State, 113 Nev. 305, 312 , 933 P.2d 187, 191 (1997) (noting that the rationale behind the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule is that a statement is more trustworthy if made contemporaneously with the event being described); see also Ramet v. State, 125 Nev. 195, 198 , 209 P.3d 268, 269 (2009) (reviewing a district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion).

2019Airlines, Inc., 626 F.2d 759, 763 (9th Cir. 1980) (addressing the federal version of the residual hearsay exception and holding that the "exception is not to be used as a new and broad hearsay exception, but rather is to be used rarely and in exceptional circumstances"); Flores v. State, 69 S.W.3d 864, 876 (Ark. 2002) ("The residual hearsay exception was intended to be used very rarely, and only in exceptional circumstances.").

2019Airlines, Inc., 626 F.2d 759, 763 (9th Cir. 1980) (addressing the federal version of the residual hearsay exception and holding that the "exception is not to be used as a new and broad hearsay exception, but rather is to be used rarely and in exceptional circumstances"); Flores v. State, 69 S.W.3d 864, 876 (Ark. 2002) ("The residual hearsay exception was intended to be used very rarely, and only in exceptional circumstances.").

2019Airlines, Inc., 626 F.2d 759, 763 (9th Cir. 1980) (addressing the federal version of the residual hearsay exception and holding that the "exception is not to be used as a new and broad hearsay exception, but rather is to be used rarely and in exceptional circumstances"); Flores v. State, 69 S.W.3d 864, 876 (Ark. 2002) ("The residual hearsay exception was intended to be used very rarely, and only in exceptional circumstances.").

2019Airlines, Inc., 626 F.2d 759, 763 (9th Cir. 1980) (addressing the federal version of the residual hearsay exception and holding that the "exception is not to be used as a new and broad hearsay exception, but rather is to be used rarely and in exceptional circumstances"); Flores v. State, 69 S.W.3d 864, 876 (Ark. 2002) ("The residual hearsay exception was intended to be used very rarely, and only in exceptional circumstances.").

2019See Harkins v. State, 122 Nev. 974, 980 , 143 P.3d 706, 709 (2006) (holding that this court reviews a district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence under a hearsay exception for abuse of discretion).

2019See Harkins v. State, 122 Nev. 974, 980 , 143 P.3d 706, 709 (2006) (holding that this court reviews a district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence under a hearsay exception for abuse of discretion).

2016See NRS 51.035(2)(a); Fields v. State, 125 Nev. 785, 795 , 220 P.3d 709, 716 (2009) (reviewing a district court's determination as to a hearsay exception for an abuse of discretion).

2016See NRS 51.035(2)(a); Fields v. State, 125 Nev. 785, 795 , 220 P.3d 709, 716 (2009) (reviewing a district court's determination as to a hearsay exception for an abuse of discretion).

2015See Davis v. State, 107 Nev. 600, 606 , 817 P.2d 1169, 1173 (1991) (holding that this court need not consider arguments raised on appeal that were not presented to the district court in the first instance), overruled on other grounds by Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012-13 , 103 P.3d 25, 33 (2004).

2015See Davis v. State, 107 Nev. 600, 606 , 817 P.2d 1169, 1173 (1991) (holding that this court need not consider arguments raised on appeal that were not presented to the district court in the first instance), overruled on other grounds by Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012-13 , 103 P.3d 25, 33 (2004).

2015See Davis v. State, 107 Nev. 600, 606 , 817 P.2d 1169, 1173 (1991) (holding that this court need not consider arguments raised on appeal that were not presented to the district court in the first instance), overruled on other grounds by Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012-13 , 103 P.3d 25, 33 (2004).

2015See Davis v. State, 107 Nev. 600, 606 , 817 P.2d 1169, 1173 (1991) (holding that this court need not consider arguments raised on appeal that were not presented to the district court in the first instance), overruled on other grounds by Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012-13 , 103 P.3d 25, 33 (2004).

2013Avery v. State, 122 Nev. 278, 285 , 129 P.3d 664, 669 (2006) (quoting Robertson v. State, 84 Nev. 559, 561-62 , 445 P.2d 352, 353 (1968)).

2013Avery v. State, 122 Nev. 278, 285 , 129 P.3d 664, 669 (2006) (quoting Robertson v. State, 84 Nev. 559, 561-62 , 445 P.2d 352, 353 (1968)).

2013Avery v. State, 122 Nev. 278, 285 , 129 P.3d 664, 669 (2006) (quoting Robertson v. State, 84 Nev. 559, 561-62 , 445 P.2d 352, 353 (1968)).

2013Avery v. State, 122 Nev. 278, 285 , 129 P.3d 664, 669 (2006) (quoting Robertson v. State, 84 Nev. 559, 561-62 , 445 P.2d 352, 353 (1968)).

2006She was also called as a witness by Ennis but was not questioned regarding her statement made to her daughter over the phone. [49] NRS 51.095 ("A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule."). [50] Donovan v. State, 94 Nev. 671, 675 , 584 P.2d 708, 711 (1978). [51] We have reviewed Ennis's other arguments concerning ineffective assistance of counsel and cumulative error and conclude they are without merit. [1] 541 U.S. 36, 59 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L

2006She was also called as a witness by Ennis but was not questioned regarding her statement made to her daughter over the phone. [49] NRS 51.095 ("A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule."). [50] Donovan v. State, 94 Nev. 671, 675 , 584 P.2d 708, 711 (1978). [51] We have reviewed Ennis's other arguments concerning ineffective assistance of counsel and cumulative error and conclude they are without merit. [1] 541 U.S. 36, 59 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L

2006She was also called as a witness by Ennis but was not questioned regarding her statement made to her daughter over the phone. [49] NRS 51.095 ("A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule."). [50] Donovan v. State, 94 Nev. 671, 675 , 584 P.2d 708, 711 (1978). [51] We have reviewed Ennis's other arguments concerning ineffective assistance of counsel and cumulative error and conclude they are without merit. [1] 541 U.S. 36, 59 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L

2006She was also called as a witness by Ennis but was not questioned regarding her statement made to her daughter over the phone. [49] NRS 51.095 ("A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule."). [50] Donovan v. State, 94 Nev. 671, 675 , 584 P.2d 708, 711 (1978). [51] We have reviewed Ennis's other arguments concerning ineffective assistance of counsel and cumulative error and conclude they are without merit. [1] 541 U.S. 36, 59 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L

2005J., Rose, Gibbons, Douglas, Hardesty and Parraguirre, JJ., concur. 1 541 U.S. 36, 59 (2004) (holding that testimonial hearsay statements of a witness who does not appear at trial are inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment unless the witness is unavailable to testify, and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness). 2 NRS 51.315(1) states: A statement is not excluded by the hearsay rule if: (a) Its nature and the special circumstances under which it was made offer strong assurances of accuracy; and (b) The declarant is unavailable as a wit

2005J., Rose, Gibbons, Douglas, Hardesty and Parraguirre, JJ., concur. 1 541 U.S. 36, 59 (2004) (holding that testimonial hearsay statements of a witness who does not appear at trial are inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment unless the witness is unavailable to testify, and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness). 2 NRS 51.315(1) states: A statement is not excluded by the hearsay rule if: (a) Its nature and the special circumstances under which it was made offer strong assurances of accuracy; and (b) The declarant is unavailable as a wit

1997The district court "ruled Weakland unavailable as a witness because he was `persistent in refusing to testify,' NRS 51.055(1)(b), and admitted his preliminary hearing testimony under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule, NRS 51.325." Id. at 45 , 604 P.2d at 813 .

1997The district court "ruled Weakland unavailable as a witness because he was `persistent in refusing to testify,' NRS 51.055(1)(b), and admitted his preliminary hearing testimony under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule, NRS 51.325." Id. at 45 , 604 P.2d at 813 .

1983A statement is not excluded by the hearsay rule if: (a) Its nature and the special circumstances under which it was made offer strong assurances of accuracy; and (b) The declarant is unavailable as a witness. 3 In a supplemental brief appellant cites Johnstone v. State, 92 Nev. 241 , 548 P.2d 1362 (1976).

1983A statement is not excluded by the hearsay rule if: (a) Its nature and the special circumstances under which it was made offer strong assurances of accuracy; and (b) The declarant is unavailable as a witness. 3 In a supplemental brief appellant cites Johnstone v. State, 92 Nev. 241 , 548 P.2d 1362 (1976).

2020As to the hearsay instruction, Belcher acknowledges that the language is a correct statement of the law, as hearsay is generally admissible at a capital penalty hearing under NRS 175.552(3), and that neither the Confrontation Clause nor Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), apply to evidence admitted at a capital penalty hearing, see, e.g., Summers v. State, 122 Nev. 1326, 1332-33, 148 P.3d 778, 783 (2006).

2020As to the hearsay instruction, Belcher acknowledges that the language is a correct statement of the law, as hearsay is generally admissible at a capital penalty hearing under NRS 175.552(3), and that neither the Confrontation Clause nor Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), apply to evidence admitted at a capital penalty hearing, see, e.g., Summers v. State, 122 Nev. 1326, 1332-33, 148 P.3d 778, 783 (2006).

2020See McKenna v. State, 114 Nev. 1044, 1056 , 968 P.2d 739, 747 (1998) (citing Taylor v. State, 109 Nev. 849, 860 , 858 P.2d 843, 850 (1993) (Shearing, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)).

2020See McKenna v. State, 114 Nev. 1044, 1056 , 968 P.2d 739, 747 (1998) (citing Taylor v. State, 109 Nev. 849, 860 , 858 P.2d 843, 850 (1993) (Shearing, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)).

2020See McKenna v. State, 114 Nev. 1044, 1056 , 968 P.2d 739, 747 (1998) (citing Taylor v. State, 109 Nev. 849, 860 , 858 P.2d 843, 850 (1993) (Shearing, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)).

2020See McKenna v. State, 114 Nev. 1044, 1056 , 968 P.2d 739, 747 (1998) (citing Taylor v. State, 109 Nev. 849, 860 , 858 P.2d 843, 850 (1993) (Shearing, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)).