Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.035 (2026)

Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion or waste of time

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 48.035 Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion or waste of time.

1. Although relevant, evidence is not admissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues or of misleading the jury.

2. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

3. Evidence of another act or crime which is so closely related to an act in controversy or a crime charged that an ordinary witness cannot describe the act in controversy or the crime charged without referring to the other act or crime shall not be excluded, but at the request of an interested party, a cautionary instruction shall be given explaining the reason for its admission.

(Added to NRS by 1971, 780; A 1979, 37)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 315 cases (40 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 267 P.3d 777 (Nev. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 267 P.3d 777 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 7× “Having determined that retrograde extrapolation evidence is relevant, we turn to the second question in determining whether retrograde extrapolation evidence is admissible: the danger of unfair prejudice. Under NRS 48.035(1), relevant evidence is inadmissible “if its probative…”

Butler v. State, 102 P.3d 71 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 8× “Additionally, NRS 48.035(3) provides in part that evidence of another act may be admissible if the act "is so closely related to an act in controversy or a crime charged that an ordinary witness cannot describe the act in controversy or the crime charged without referring to the…”

Weber v. State, 119 P.3d 107 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 6× “The State also argues that evidence of other acts would have been cross-admissible in separate trials to tell the "complete story" of charged crimes pursuant to NRS 48.035(3). We reject this argument. NRS 48.”

Harris v. State, 432 P.3d 207 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 6× “NRS 48.035 requires the district court to act as a gatekeeper by assessing the need for the evidence on a case-by-case basis and excluding it when the benefit it adds is substantially outweighed by the unfair harm it might cause.”

Floyd v. State, 42 P.3d 249 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 6× “" Nevertheless, NRS 48.035(1) remains applicable in a capital penalty proceeding and provides that even relevant evidence "is not admissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues or of misleading the jury.”

Krause Inc. v. Little, 34 P.3d 566 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 4× “"NRS 48.035 allows the district court to exclude evidence if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or undue delay.”

Holmes v. State, 306 P.3d 415 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 5× “NRS 48.035; see Schlotfeldt v. Charter Hosp.”

Williams v. State, 429 P.3d 301 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 3× “The district court should have weighed the probative value of the evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

Tabish v. State, 72 P.3d 584 (Nev. 2003). · cites it 4× “NRS 48.035(3) provides: Evidence of another act or crime which is so closely related to an act in controversy or a crime charged that an ordinary witness cannot describe the act in controversy or the crime charged without referring to the other act or crime shall not be…”

Dow Chem. Co. v. Mahlum, 970 P.2d 98 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 4× “A district judge who admits such evidence risks reversal under NRS 48.035. But in this particular instance, we are not convinced that unfair prejudice outweighed the probative value of a few brief references to the Stern verdict at this trial.”

Bellon v. State, 117 P.3d 176 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 5× “045, the prior bad act statute; rather, it was offered under NRS 48.035, the res gestae statute. The State contended that the statements fell within the res gestae doctrine because the statements were part of the complete story of the crime.”

Roever v. State, 963 P.2d 503 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 12× “[4] Even if there was a doctrinal basis for the admissibility of this "character" evidence, its introduction would also run afoul of the district court's discretion under NRS 48.035 [5] because much of this evidence was so inflammatory, speculative and utterly fantastic as to…”

Show all 315 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.035(1) — 184 cases

State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 267 P.3d 777 (Nev. 2011). “Having determined that retrograde extrapolation evidence is relevant, we turn to the second question in determining whether retrograde extrapolation evidence is admissible: the danger of unfair prejudice. Under NRS 48.035(1), relevant evidence is inadmissible “if its probative…”

Floyd v. State, 42 P.3d 249 (Nev. 2002). “" Nevertheless, NRS 48.035(1) remains applicable in a capital penalty proceeding and provides that even relevant evidence "is not admissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues or of misleading the jury.”

Harris v. State, 432 P.3d 207 (Nev. 2018). “NRS 48.035 requires the district court to act as a gatekeeper by assessing the need for the evidence on a case-by-case basis and excluding it when the benefit it adds is substantially outweighed by the unfair harm it might cause.”

Rodriguez v. State, 273 P.3d 845 (Nev. 2012).

Collman v. State, 7 P.3d 426 (Nev. 2000).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.035(2) — 23 cases

Thomas v. State, 148 P.3d 727 (Nev. 2006).

Thomas v. State, 967 P.2d 1111 (Nev. 1998).

Riggins v. State, 808 P.2d 535 (Nev. 1991).

Mei-Gsr Holdings, LLC v. Peppermill Casinos, Inc., 416 P.3d 249 (Nev. 2018).

Sims v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 206 P.3d 980 (Nev. 2009).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.035(3) — 38 cases

Butler v. State, 102 P.3d 71 (Nev. 2004). “Additionally, NRS 48.035(3) provides in part that evidence of another act may be admissible if the act "is so closely related to an act in controversy or a crime charged that an ordinary witness cannot describe the act in controversy or the crime charged without referring to the…”

Weber v. State, 119 P.3d 107 (Nev. 2005). “The State also argues that evidence of other acts would have been cross-admissible in separate trials to tell the "complete story" of charged crimes pursuant to NRS 48.035(3). We reject this argument. NRS 48.”

Tabish v. State, 72 P.3d 584 (Nev. 2003). “NRS 48.035(3) provides: Evidence of another act or crime which is so closely related to an act in controversy or a crime charged that an ordinary witness cannot describe the act in controversy or the crime charged without referring to the other act or crime shall not be…”

Bellon v. State, 117 P.3d 176 (Nev. 2005). “045, the prior bad act statute; rather, it was offered under NRS 48.035, the res gestae statute. The State contended that the statements fell within the res gestae doctrine because the statements were part of the complete story of the crime.”

Ochoa v. State, 981 P.2d 1201 (Nev. 1999).

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.