NRS
48.061 Effects of domestic violence.
1. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 2, evidence of domestic violence and expert testimony concerning the
effect of domestic violence, including, without limitation, the effect of
physical, emotional or mental abuse, on the beliefs, behavior and perception of
the alleged victim of the domestic violence that is offered by the prosecution
or defense is admissible in a criminal proceeding for any relevant purpose,
including, without limitation, when determining:
(a) Whether a defendant is excepted from criminal
liability pursuant to subsection 8 of NRS
194.010, to show the state of mind of the defendant.
(b) Whether a defendant in accordance with NRS 200.200 has killed another in
self-defense, toward the establishment of the legal defense.
2. Expert testimony concerning the effect
of domestic violence may not be offered against a defendant pursuant to
subsection 1 to prove the occurrence of an act which forms the basis of a
criminal charge against the defendant.
3. As used in this section, “domestic
violence” means the commission of any act described in NRS 33.018.
(Added to NRS by 1993,
1107; A 1995,
2466; 2001,
1698; 2001
Special Session, 123; 2003,
74, 1479;
2015,
787)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case:
Boykins v. State, 995 P.2d 474 (Nev. 2000).
Boykins v. State, 995 P.2d 474 (Nev. 2000).
· cites it 28× “The district court declined to give this instruction, finding that there were other instructions, specifically Instruction 34, that adequately advised the jury on the effects of domestic violence to a claim of self-defense pursuant to NRS 48.061 and 200.200. Boykins claims that…”
Newman v. State, 298 P.3d 1171 (Nev. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Additionally, Honkanen's rationale may be outdated in light of the 2001 amendments to NRS 48.061, which expand the use of bad-act evidence in domestic violence cases, 2001 Nev.”
Pineda v. State, 88 P.3d 827 (Nev. 2004).
· cites it 2× “[2] Our decision in Boykins was based upon NRS 48.061, which authorizes the admission of expert evidence concerning the effect of domestic violence on the beliefs, behavior and perception of the person when determining state of mind or self-defense.”
Chabot (wacey) v. State (Crim.), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 27 (Nev. 2026).
“035(3) or NRS 48.061. Chabot failed to raise these arguments below and therefore waived them.”
Griffith (Jason) v. State (Nev. 2016).
· cites it 2× “188, 191 (1880)); see also NRS 48.061(1)(b) ("[E]vidence of domestic violence .”
Lowe (Lanalsikov) v. State (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Lowe argues that the testimony did not assist the jury, was more prejudicial than probative, vouched for witnesses, and was in violation of NRS 48.061(2), which states that "[e]xpert testimony concerning the effect of domestic violence may not be offered against a defendant .”
Brizzolara (Bryan) v. State (Nev. 2014).
“The witness did not testify to matters precluded by NRS 48.061(2) or to prior bad acts, and the testimony was highly probative, and the probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.061(1)(b) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.061(2) — 2 cases
Lowe (Lanalsikov) v. State (Nev. 2014).
“Lowe argues that the testimony did not assist the jury, was more prejudicial than probative, vouched for witnesses, and was in violation of NRS 48.061(2), which states that "[e]xpert testimony concerning the effect of domestic violence may not be offered against a defendant .”
Brizzolara (Bryan) v. State (Nev. 2014).
“The witness did not testify to matters precluded by NRS 48.061(2) or to prior bad acts, and the testimony was highly probative, and the probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.”
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.