Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.070 (2026)
Preliminary questions of admissibility: Relevancy conditioned on fact
✓ 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 47.070 Preliminary questions of admissibility: Relevancy conditioned on
fact.
1. When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the judge shall admit it upon the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition.
2. If under all the evidence upon the issue the jury might reasonably find that the fulfillment of the condition is not established, the judge shall instruct the jury to consider the issue and to disregard the evidence unless they find the condition was fulfilled.
3. If under all the evidence upon the issue the jury could not reasonably find that the condition was fulfilled, the judge shall instruct the jury to disregard the evidence.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 776)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 2012–2019 · leading case: Franks v. State, 432 P.3d 752 (Nev. 2019).
Franks v. State, 432 P.3d 752 (Nev. 2019). “" NRS 47.070(1). In light of the nature of prior sexual act evidence, federal courts require "district court[s] [to] make a preliminary finding that a jury could reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that the other act occurred.”
Rodriguez v. State, 273 P.3d 845 (Nev. 2012). “060; NRS 47.070. 5 Here, the State offered the text messages to prove that Rodriguez was one of the men who assaulted the victim.”
Griffith (Jason) v. State, No. 66312 (Nev. Aug. 11, 2016). “Turning to the second part of the Menendez analysis, the district court here appears to have based its ruling on NRS 47.070(1), which provides that "[wlhen the relevancy of evidence depends upon the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (D) 1947A ep fulfillment of a condition of fact, the…”
Franks (kenneth) Vs. State, 2019 NV 1 (Nev. 2019). “" NRS 47.070(1). In light of the nature of prior sexual act evidence, federal courts require "district court[s] [to] make a preliminary finding that a jury could reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that the other act occurred.”
Franks (kenneth) Vs. State, 2019 NV 1 (Nev. 2019). “" NRS 47.070(1). In light of the nature of prior sexual act evidence, federal courts require "district court[s] [to] make a preliminary finding that a jury could reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that the other act occurred.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.070(1): 4 cases
Franks v. State, 432 P.3d 752 (Nev. 2019). “" NRS 47.070(1). In light of the nature of prior sexual act evidence, federal courts require "district court[s] [to] make a preliminary finding that a jury could reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that the other act occurred.”
Griffith (Jason) v. State, No. 66312 (Nev. Aug. 11, 2016). “Turning to the second part of the Menendez analysis, the district court here appears to have based its ruling on NRS 47.070(1), which provides that "[wlhen the relevancy of evidence depends upon the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (D) 1947A ep fulfillment of a condition of fact, the…”
Franks (kenneth) Vs. State, 2019 NV 1 (Nev. 2019). “" NRS 47.070(1). In light of the nature of prior sexual act evidence, federal courts require "district court[s] [to] make a preliminary finding that a jury could reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that the other act occurred.”
Franks (kenneth) Vs. State, 2019 NV 1 (Nev. 2019). “" NRS 47.070(1). In light of the nature of prior sexual act evidence, federal courts require "district court[s] [to] make a preliminary finding that a jury could reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that the other act occurred.”
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.