6 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nevada courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Weber v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Weber v. State, 121 Nev. 554, 574 , 119 P.3d 107, 121 (2005) (holding that NRS 48.035(3) does not apply when a witness is attempting to "explain" the charged crime by referring to the prior crime but, rather, only applies to allow the admission of evidence of a prior crime when a witness cannot "describe" the charged crime without referring to the prior crime) rejected on other grounds by Farmer v. State, 133 Nev.,-Adv. 2019See Weber v. State, 121 Nev. 554, 574 , 119 P.3d 107, 121 (2005) (holding that NRS 48.035(3) does not apply when a witness is attempting to "explain" the charged crime by referring to the prior crime but, rather, only applies to allow the admission of evidence of a prior crime when a witness cannot "describe" the charged crime without referring to the prior crime) rejected on other grounds by Farmer v. State, 133 Nev.,-Adv. | 2 | 2 |
Allan v. Stategreen2 sentences1995In Allan v. State, 92 Nev. 318 , 549 P.2d 1402 (1976), this court explained the res gestae doctrine. [W]hen several crimes are intermixed or blended with one another, or connected such that they form an indivisible criminal transaction, and when full proof by testimony, whether direct or circumstantial, of any one of them cannot be given without showing the others, evidence of any or all of them is admissible against a defendant on trial for any offense which is itself a detail of the whole criminal scheme. 1995In Allan v. State, 92 Nev. 318 , 549 P.2d 1402 (1976), this court explained the res gestae doctrine. [W]hen several crimes are intermixed or blended with one another, or connected such that they form an indivisible criminal transaction, and when full proof by testimony, whether direct or circumstantial, of any one of them cannot be given without showing the others, evidence of any or all of them is admissible against a defendant on trial for any offense which is itself a detail of the whole criminal scheme. | 1 | 3 |
Greene v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See Greene v. State, 113 Nev. 157, 173 , 931 P.2d 54, 64 (1997) (permitting inconsistent verdicts), overruled in part on other grounds by Byford v. State, 116 Nev. 215 , 235, 994 P.2d 700, 713 (2000). 2026See Greene v. State, 113 Nev. 157, 173 , 931 P.2d 54, 64 (1997) (permitting inconsistent verdicts), overruled in part on other grounds by Byford v. State, 116 Nev. 215 , 235, 994 P.2d 700, 713 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Byford v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Greene v. State, 113 Nev. 157, 173 , 931 P.2d 54, 64 (1997) (permitting inconsistent verdicts), overruled in part on other grounds by Byford v. State, 116 Nev. 215 , 235, 994 P.2d 700, 713 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shadegreen2 sentences1998In State v. Shade, 111 Nev. 887, 894 , 900 P.2d 327, 331 (1995), we revisited the applicability of the res gestae doctrine and explained that: In reading NRS 48.035 as a whole, it is clear that where the res gestae doctrine is applicable ... the controlling question is whether witnesses can describe the crime charged without referring to related uncharged acts. 1998In State v. Shade, 111 Nev. 887, 894 , 900 P.2d 327, 331 (1995), we revisited the applicability of the res gestae doctrine and explained that: In reading NRS 48.035 as a whole, it is clear that where the res gestae doctrine is applicable ... the controlling question is whether witnesses can describe the crime charged without referring to related uncharged acts. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Allan v. Stategreen2 sentences1995In Allan v. State, 92 Nev. 318 , 549 P.2d 1402 (1976), this court explained the res gestae doctrine. [W]hen several crimes are intermixed or blended with one another, or connected such that they form an indivisible criminal transaction, and when full proof by testimony, whether direct or circumstantial, of any one of them cannot be given without showing the others, evidence of any or all of them is admissible against a defendant on trial for any offense which is itself a detail of the whole criminal scheme. 1995In Allan v. State, 92 Nev. 318 , 549 P.2d 1402 (1976), this court explained the res gestae doctrine. [W]hen several crimes are intermixed or blended with one another, or connected such that they form an indivisible criminal transaction, and when full proof by testimony, whether direct or circumstantial, of any one of them cannot be given without showing the others, evidence of any or all of them is admissible against a defendant on trial for any offense which is itself a detail of the whole criminal scheme. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Thomas
green
2 sentences1998Allan v. State, 92 Nev. 318, 321 , 549 P.2d 1402, 1404 (1976) (citing People v. Thomas, 83 Cal. Rptr. 879 (Ct. App. 1970)). 1995Id. at 321 , 549 P.2d at 1404 (citing People v. Thomas, 83 Cal. Rptr. 879 (Ct. App. 1970)). | 2 | 1995–1998 |
Nester v. State
green
2 sentences1980NRS 48.035(1); Mayes v. State, 95 Nev. 140 , 591 P.2d 250 (1979); Nester v. State of Nevada, 75 Nev. 41 , 334 P.2d 524 (1959). 3 Also known as the res gestae exception. 1980NRS 48.035(1); Mayes v. State, 95 Nev. 140 , 591 P.2d 250 (1979); Nester v. State of Nevada, 75 Nev. 41 , 334 P.2d 524 (1959). 3 Also known as the res gestae exception. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Mayes v. State
green
2 sentences1980NRS 48.035(1); Mayes v. State, 95 Nev. 140 , 591 P.2d 250 (1979); Nester v. State of Nevada, 75 Nev. 41 , 334 P.2d 524 (1959). 3 Also known as the res gestae exception. 1980NRS 48.035(1); Mayes v. State, 95 Nev. 140 , 591 P.2d 250 (1979); Nester v. State of Nevada, 75 Nev. 41 , 334 P.2d 524 (1959). 3 Also known as the res gestae exception. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.