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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.120 (2026)

Remainder of writings or recorded statements

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 47.120  Remainder of writings or recorded statements.

      1.  When any part of a writing or recorded statement is introduced by a party, the party may be required at that time to introduce any other part of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other relevant parts.

      2.  This section does not limit cross-examination.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 776)

JUDICIAL NOTICE

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: Collman v. State, 7 P.3d 426 (Nev. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Collman v. State, 7 P.3d 426 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 4× “We conclude that this argument has no merit pursuant to NRS 47.120(1), which provides: "When any part of a writing or recorded statement is introduced by a party, he may be required at that time to introduce any other part of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any…”
Patterson v. State, 907 P.2d 984 (Nev. 1995). · cites it 4× “NRS 47.120 provides: 1. When any part of a writing or recorded statement is introduced by a party, he may be required at that time to introduce any other part of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other relevant parts.”
Domingues v. State, 917 P.2d 1364 (Nev. 1996). · cites it 2× “NRS 47.120 provides, “[w]hen any part of a writing or recorded statement is introduced by a party, he may be required at that time to introduce any other part of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other relevant parts.”
Crew v. State, 675 P.2d 986 (Nev. 1984). · cites it 2× “1979); NRS 47.120. 4 As in Baron , most of Dow- *45 ell’s testimony was consistent with the statement; the inconsistencies went only to details.”
Rodriguez (isaac) v. State, 551 P.3d 311 (Nev. 2024). · cites it 6× “We agree with the State, as Rodriguez did not frame his objection at trial as being based on the rule of completeness.”
Rodriguez (isaac) v. State, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 47 (Nev. 2024). · cites it 4× “Thus, Rodriguez did not object on the grounds that NRS 47.120(1), the rule of completeness, barred the admission of the State's exhibits.”
Torres-Banuelos (Eligio) v. State (Nev. 2017). · cites it 2× “The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the initial portion of Torres's taped interrogation Torres argues that the district court erred in denying his request to admit the other portions of his taped confession because the rule of completeness, codified as…”
Farmer (steven) Vs. State, 2017 NV 86 (Nev. 2017). · cites it 2× “Farmer fails to demonstrate that the portion of the diary was admissible; his reliance on NRS 47.120 is misplaced because the diary was never introduced and he does not establish a sufficient evidentiary basis to admit it on other grounds.”
Flowers (norman) Vs. State c/w 55759, 2020 NV 1 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “NRS 47.120(1) (When any part of a writing or recorded staternent is introduced by a party, the party may be required at that time to introduce any other part of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other relevant parts.”
Flowers (norman) Vs. State c/w 55759, 2020 NV 1 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “NRS 47.120(1) (When any part of a writing or recorded staternent is introduced by a party, the party may be required at that time to introduce any other part of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other relevant parts.”
Robles (Fernando) v. State (Nev. 2016). “As to NRS 47.120, the rule of completeness, 4 0n cross-examination of the detective, Robles elicited testimony as to the length of the interview, the detective's use of techniques to elicit a confession, the failure to interview Lopez, and the failure to conduct any further…”
White (Troy) v. State (Nev. 2017). “'White also argues that the voicemails should have been admitted under NRS 47.120(1), also known as the rule of completeness.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.120(1) — 8 cases
Collman v. State, 7 P.3d 426 (Nev. 2000). “We conclude that this argument has no merit pursuant to NRS 47.120(1), which provides: "When any part of a writing or recorded statement is introduced by a party, he may be required at that time to introduce any other part of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any…”
Rodriguez (isaac) v. State, 551 P.3d 311 (Nev. 2024). “We agree with the State, as Rodriguez did not frame his objection at trial as being based on the rule of completeness.”
Rodriguez (isaac) v. State, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 47 (Nev. 2024). “Thus, Rodriguez did not object on the grounds that NRS 47.120(1), the rule of completeness, barred the admission of the State's exhibits.”
Flowers (norman) Vs. State c/w 55759, 2020 NV 1 (Nev. 2020). “NRS 47.120(1) (When any part of a writing or recorded staternent is introduced by a party, the party may be required at that time to introduce any other part of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other relevant parts.”
Flowers (norman) Vs. State c/w 55759, 2020 NV 1 (Nev. 2020). “NRS 47.120(1) (When any part of a writing or recorded staternent is introduced by a party, the party may be required at that time to introduce any other part of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other relevant parts.”
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.