Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.045
Evidence of character inadmissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 48.045 Evidence of character inadmissible to prove conduct; exceptions;
other crimes.
1. Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of his or her character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:
(a) Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of his or her character offered by an accused, and similar evidence offered by the prosecution to rebut such evidence;
(b) Evidence of the character or a trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, subject to the procedural requirements of NRS 48.069 where applicable, and similar evidence offered by the prosecution to rebut such evidence; and
(c) Unless excluded by NRS 50.090, evidence of the character of a witness, offered to attack or support his or her credibility, within the limits provided by NRS 50.085.
2. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
3. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the admission of evidence in a criminal prosecution for a sexual offense that a person committed another crime, wrong or act that constitutes a separate sexual offense. As used in this subsection, “sexual offense” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 179D.097.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 781; A 1975, 1131; 2015, 2243)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 316
cases (49 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Ledbetter v. State
Ledbetter v. State (2006)
“The district court permitted the State to introduce in its case-in-chief evidence that Ledbetter had previously sexually abused his biological daughter, T.”
Franks v. State (2019)
“" However, in a 2015 amendment to Nevada's evidence code, the Legislature added a new rule, codified at NRS 48.045(3), which supersedes NRS 489.045(2)'s restriction on evidence of similar bad conduct for purposes of showing propensity in sexual offense cases.”
Richmond v. State (2002)
“was not relevant under any of the other exceptions to NRS 48.045. Therefore, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in admitting A.”
Bigpond v. State (2012)
“Although dicta, this statement reflects an understanding of Nevada’s prior bad act jurisprudence that does not take account of a significant change in the approach to prior bad act evidence that was codified when the Legislature adopted NRS 48.045 in 1971. We now correct this…”
Newman v. State (2013)
“Newman raises two issues on appeal, both rooted in NRS 48.045's prohibition against using character or prior-bad-act evidence to prove criminal propensity.”
Weber v. State (2005)
“NRS 48.045 states that character evidence, usually in the form of prior bad acts evidence, *131 is inadmissible to prove conduct but that prior bad acts are admissible for other purposes such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or…”
Braunstein v. State (2002)
“" [16] Evidence of such a propensity sounds much more like the kind of inadmissible, bad character evidence prohibited by NRS 48.045(1). The "doctrine" of McMichael was extended out of its context in Findley v.”
Fields v. State (2009)
“As a former public defender, special public defender, and a trial judge, I fear that the majority's reasoning in affirming the murder conviction of appellant emasculates NRS 48.045. I hope that our trial *718 judges in the State of Nevada will continue to follow the general rule…”
Dickey v. State (2024)
“Dickey asserts the ex-girlfriend’s testimony constituted impermissible character evidence under NRS 48.045(1). Alternatively, Dickey asks this court to find the district court erred in finding the ex-girlfriend’s testimony was not substantially more prejudicial than probative.”
Tabish v. State (2003)
“[22] See NRS 48.045(1) (subject to certain exceptions, "[e]vidence of a person's character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion").”
Roever v. State (1998)
“Admissibility of character evidence under NRS 48.045. At trial, during the State's case in chief, the parties stipulated to playing a taped interview between Roever and Detective Frank Ruas.”
Rosky v. State (2005)
“However, we conclude that the admission of prior bad act testimony as proof of a common plan or scheme or modus operandi under NRS 48.045(2), combined with improper limiting instructions and the State’s improper remarks during its opening statement, compels reversal of Rosky’s…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.045(1) — 20 cases
Braunstein v. State (2002)
“" [16] Evidence of such a propensity sounds much more like the kind of inadmissible, bad character evidence prohibited by NRS 48.045(1). The "doctrine" of McMichael was extended out of its context in Findley v.”
Tabish v. State (2003)
“[22] See NRS 48.045(1) (subject to certain exceptions, "[e]vidence of a person's character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion").”
Daly v. State (1983)
Daniel v. State (2003)
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.045(1)(a) — 8 cases
Newman v. State (2013)
“Newman raises two issues on appeal, both rooted in NRS 48.045's prohibition against using character or prior-bad-act evidence to prove criminal propensity.”
Roever v. State (1998)
“Admissibility of character evidence under NRS 48.045. At trial, during the State's case in chief, the parties stipulated to playing a taped interview between Roever and Detective Frank Ruas.”
Rembert v. State (1988)
Emerson v. State (1982)
Quintana (Nestor) Vs. State (2021)
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.045(1)(b) — 10 cases
Sanborn v. State (1991)
Sterling v. State (1992)
Sparks v. State (1988)
Burgeon v. State (1986)
Petty v. State (2000)
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.045(1)(c) — 1 case
Roever v. State (1998)
“Admissibility of character evidence under NRS 48.045. At trial, during the State's case in chief, the parties stipulated to playing a taped interview between Roever and Detective Frank Ruas.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.045(2) — 260 cases
Ledbetter v. State (2006)
“The district court permitted the State to introduce in its case-in-chief evidence that Ledbetter had previously sexually abused his biological daughter, T.”
Richmond v. State (2002)
“was not relevant under any of the other exceptions to NRS 48.045. Therefore, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in admitting A.”
Bigpond v. State (2012)
“Although dicta, this statement reflects an understanding of Nevada’s prior bad act jurisprudence that does not take account of a significant change in the approach to prior bad act evidence that was codified when the Legislature adopted NRS 48.045 in 1971. We now correct this…”
Braunstein v. State (2002)
“" [16] Evidence of such a propensity sounds much more like the kind of inadmissible, bad character evidence prohibited by NRS 48.045(1). The "doctrine" of McMichael was extended out of its context in Findley v.”
Newman v. State (2013)
“Newman raises two issues on appeal, both rooted in NRS 48.045's prohibition against using character or prior-bad-act evidence to prove criminal propensity.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.045(3) — 27 cases
Franks v. State (2019)
“" However, in a 2015 amendment to Nevada's evidence code, the Legislature added a new rule, codified at NRS 48.045(3), which supersedes NRS 489.045(2)'s restriction on evidence of similar bad conduct for purposes of showing propensity in sexual offense cases.”
CHAPARRO (OSBALDO) VS. STATE (2021)
Dickey v. State (2024)
“Dickey asserts the ex-girlfriend’s testimony constituted impermissible character evidence under NRS 48.045(1). Alternatively, Dickey asks this court to find the district court erred in finding the ex-girlfriend’s testimony was not substantially more prejudicial than probative.”
FRANKS (KENNETH) VS. STATE (2019)
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.045(8) — 1 case
Dickey v. State (2024)
“Dickey asserts the ex-girlfriend’s testimony constituted impermissible character evidence under NRS 48.045(1). Alternatively, Dickey asks this court to find the district court erred in finding the ex-girlfriend’s testimony was not substantially more prejudicial than probative.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.045(B) — 2 cases
Kravetz v. State of Nevada (2020)
Kravetz v. State of Nevada (2022)
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.045(l)(a) — 6 cases
Mitchell v. State (2008)
Jezdik v. State (2005)
Daniel v. State (2003)
Roever v. State (1998)
“Admissibility of character evidence under NRS 48.045. At trial, during the State's case in chief, the parties stipulated to playing a taped interview between Roever and Detective Frank Ruas.”
Rembert v. State (1988)
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.045(l)(b) — 3 cases
Sanborn v. State (1991)
Mortensen v. State (1999)
Petty v. State (2000)
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.045(l)(c) — 2 cases
Mortensen v. State (1999)
Roever v. State (1998)
“Admissibility of character evidence under NRS 48.045. At trial, during the State's case in chief, the parties stipulated to playing a taped interview between Roever and Detective Frank Ruas.”
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.