Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 47 - GENERAL PROVISIONS; JUDICIAL NOTICE; PRESUMPTIONS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.040 (2026)

Rulings on evidence: Effect of error

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 47.040  Rulings on evidence: Effect of error.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and:

      (a) In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection.

      (b) In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the judge by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.

      2.  This section does not preclude taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the judge.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 775)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1972–2023 · leading case: Holmes v. State, 306 P.3d 415 (Nev. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Holmes v. State, 306 P.3d 415 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 6× “" SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 12 (0) 1947A NRS 47.040(1)(a) states that "error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and filn case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion…”
Thomas v. Hardwick, 231 P.3d 1111 (Nev. 2010). · cites it 6× “3d 1249, 1252-54 (2002); NRS 47.040(1). Thomas did not renew her motion in limine or ask the court to exclude all testimony about recall bias before Dr.”
Quiana M. B. v. State Dep't of Fam. Servs., 283 P.3d 842 (Nev. 2012). · cites it 3× “(stating that a proper objection pursuant to NRS 47.040(1) serves to educate both die trial court and the opposing party).”
Abram v. State, 594 P.2d 1143 (Nev. 1979). · cites it 4× “NRS 47.040(1)(a). Here, the objections were sufficient to preserve the issues raised on appeal.”
Edwards v. State, 524 P.2d 328 (Nev. 1974). · cites it 4× “NRS 47.040(1). Upon review of the record, we think defense counsel competently represented appellant, proffering appropriate objections whenever any realistic prospect existed that the court might allow them.”
Rodriguez v. State, 273 P.3d 845 (Nev. 2012). “We thus conclude that, when there has been an objection to admissibility of a text message, see NRS 47.040(l)(a), the proponent of the evidence must explain the purpose for which the text message is being offered and provide sufficient direct or circumstantial corroborating…”
Donovan v. State, 584 P.2d 708 (Nev. 1978). · cites it 2× “NRS 47.040(2). 3. Interference with Marital Privilege.”
Gehrke v. State, 613 P.2d 1028 (Nev. 1980). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, Gehrke himself testified that he was convicted of robbery in 1972.”
Vipperman v. State, 614 P.2d 532 (Nev. 1980). · cites it 2× “NRS 47.040, 177.255, 178.598. Other contentions of error are wholly without merit.”
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Roth, 252 P.3d 649 (Nev. 2011). “2d 705, 707 (1976) (citing NRS 47.040(l)(a)). 6 Dispensing with the requirement of a contemporaneous objection would allow the proponent of the order in limine to remain silent and hope for a new trial even though, in many instances, an objection and curative instruction would…”
Sparkman v. State, 590 P.2d 151 (Nev. 1979). · cites it 2× “Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and: (a) In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of…”
Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't v. Yeghiazarian, 312 P.3d 503 (Nev. 2013). “275 provides that “[i]f scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify to…”
Show all 58 citing cases →
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.040(1): 17 cases
Thomas v. Hardwick, 231 P.3d 1111 (Nev. 2010). “3d 1249, 1252-54 (2002); NRS 47.040(1). Thomas did not renew her motion in limine or ask the court to exclude all testimony about recall bias before Dr.”
Quiana M. B. v. State Dep't of Fam. Servs., 283 P.3d 842 (Nev. 2012). “(stating that a proper objection pursuant to NRS 47.040(1) serves to educate both die trial court and the opposing party).”
Edwards v. State, 524 P.2d 328 (Nev. 1974). “NRS 47.040(1). Upon review of the record, we think defense counsel competently represented appellant, proffering appropriate objections whenever any realistic prospect existed that the court might allow them.”
Marvin v. State, 603 P.2d 1056 (Nev. 1979).
Brimmage v. State, 567 P.2d 54 (Nev. 1977).
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.040(1)(a): 17 cases
Holmes v. State, 306 P.3d 415 (Nev. 2013). “" SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 12 (0) 1947A NRS 47.040(1)(a) states that "error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and filn case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion…”
Abram v. State, 594 P.2d 1143 (Nev. 1979). “NRS 47.040(1)(a). Here, the objections were sufficient to preserve the issues raised on appeal.”
Edwards v. State, 524 P.2d 328 (Nev. 1974). “NRS 47.040(1). Upon review of the record, we think defense counsel competently represented appellant, proffering appropriate objections whenever any realistic prospect existed that the court might allow them.”
Thomas v. Hardwick, 231 P.3d 1111 (Nev. 2010). “3d 1249, 1252-54 (2002); NRS 47.040(1). Thomas did not renew her motion in limine or ask the court to exclude all testimony about recall bias before Dr.”
Woods (Leonard) Vs. State, 475 P.3d 397 (Nev. 2020).
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.040(1)(b): 7 cases
Abram v. State, 594 P.2d 1143 (Nev. 1979). “NRS 47.040(1)(a). Here, the objections were sufficient to preserve the issues raised on appeal.”
Lopez v. Lopez, 541 P.3d 117 (Nev. 2023).
Cox v. MGM Grand Hotel, LLC, 2022 NV 27 (Nev. 2022).
Carr v. Paredes C/W 60318, No. 60318 (Nev. Jan. 13, 2017).
Carr v. Paredes C/W 60318, No. 60318 (Nev. Jan. 13, 2017).
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.040(2): 4 cases
Thomas v. Hardwick, 231 P.3d 1111 (Nev. 2010). “3d 1249, 1252-54 (2002); NRS 47.040(1). Thomas did not renew her motion in limine or ask the court to exclude all testimony about recall bias before Dr.”
Donovan v. State, 584 P.2d 708 (Nev. 1978). “NRS 47.040(2). 3. Interference with Marital Privilege.”
Quiana M. B. v. State Dep't of Fam. Servs., 283 P.3d 842 (Nev. 2012). “(stating that a proper objection pursuant to NRS 47.040(1) serves to educate both die trial court and the opposing party).”
Kelly v. State, 561 P.2d 449 (Nev. 1977).
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.040(a): 1 case
City of Elko v. Zillich, 683 P.2d 5 (Nev. 1984).
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.040(l)(a): 6 cases
Holmes v. State, 306 P.3d 415 (Nev. 2013). “" SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 12 (0) 1947A NRS 47.040(1)(a) states that "error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and filn case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion…”
Rodriguez v. State, 273 P.3d 845 (Nev. 2012). “We thus conclude that, when there has been an objection to admissibility of a text message, see NRS 47.040(l)(a), the proponent of the evidence must explain the purpose for which the text message is being offered and provide sufficient direct or circumstantial corroborating…”
Quiana M. B. v. State Dep't of Fam. Servs., 283 P.3d 842 (Nev. 2012). “(stating that a proper objection pursuant to NRS 47.040(1) serves to educate both die trial court and the opposing party).”
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Roth, 252 P.3d 649 (Nev. 2011). “2d 705, 707 (1976) (citing NRS 47.040(l)(a)). 6 Dispensing with the requirement of a contemporaneous objection would allow the proponent of the order in limine to remain silent and hope for a new trial even though, in many instances, an objection and curative instruction would…”
Thomas v. Hardwick, 231 P.3d 1111 (Nev. 2010). “3d 1249, 1252-54 (2002); NRS 47.040(1). Thomas did not renew her motion in limine or ask the court to exclude all testimony about recall bias before Dr.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.040(l)(b): 3 cases
Abram v. State, 594 P.2d 1143 (Nev. 1979). “NRS 47.040(1)(a). Here, the objections were sufficient to preserve the issues raised on appeal.”
McCall v. State, 634 P.2d 1210 (Nev. 1981).
Van Valkenberg v. State, 594 P.2d 707 (Nev. 1979).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.