Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.405 (2026)

Comment upon or inference from claim of privilege; instruction

✓ current as of July 2026

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

NRS 49.405 Comment upon or inference from claim of privilege; instruction.

1. The claim of a privilege, whether in the present proceeding or upon a prior occasion, is not a proper subject of comment by judge or counsel. No inference may be drawn therefrom.

2. In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to facilitate the making of claims of privilege outside the presence of the jury.

3. Upon request, any party against whom the jury might draw an adverse inference from a claim of privilege is entitled to an instruction that no inference may be drawn therefrom.

(Added to NRS by 1971, 788)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1982–2019 · leading case: Emerson v. State, 643 P.2d 1212 (Nev. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Emerson v. State, 643 P.2d 1212 (Nev. 1982). · cites it 2× “” NRS 49.405(1). In this case, the prosecutor, on rebuttal, called the defendant’s mother-in-law for the sole purpose of asking her: “Where is your son James today?” The inference was clear.”

George v. State, 644 P.2d 510 (Nev. 1982). · cites it 2× “George suggests that the comments violated the Nevada statute on the spousal privilege and he seeks a new trial as a result of the prejudicial misconduct. NRS 49.295 is unambiguous.”

Hylton v. State, 688 P.2d 304 (Nev. 1984). “We cannot agree with the state’s argument that this error was harmless.”

Renown Health v. Holland & Hart, LLP (Nev. 2019). · cites it 4× “/ (0) 1947A er) complicated facts and procedural history of this case, we will only recount them as necessary to our disposition On appeal, appellants argue that the district court erred in granting respondents' motion for a directed verdict on appellants' claim for breach of…”

Renown Health v. Holland & Hart, LLP (Nev. 2019). · cites it 4× “/ (0) 1947A er) complicated facts and procedural history of this case, we will only recount them as necessary to our disposition On appeal, appellants argue that the district court erred in granting respondents' motion for a directed verdict on appellants' claim for breach of…”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.405(1) — 3 cases

Emerson v. State, 643 P.2d 1212 (Nev. 1982). “” NRS 49.405(1). In this case, the prosecutor, on rebuttal, called the defendant’s mother-in-law for the sole purpose of asking her: “Where is your son James today?” The inference was clear.”

Renown Health v. Holland & Hart, LLP (Nev. 2019). “/ (0) 1947A er) complicated facts and procedural history of this case, we will only recount them as necessary to our disposition On appeal, appellants argue that the district court erred in granting respondents' motion for a directed verdict on appellants' claim for breach of…”

Renown Health v. Holland & Hart, LLP (Nev. 2019). “/ (0) 1947A er) complicated facts and procedural history of this case, we will only recount them as necessary to our disposition On appeal, appellants argue that the district court erred in granting respondents' motion for a directed verdict on appellants' claim for breach of…”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.405(2) — 3 cases

Emerson v. State, 643 P.2d 1212 (Nev. 1982). “” NRS 49.405(1). In this case, the prosecutor, on rebuttal, called the defendant’s mother-in-law for the sole purpose of asking her: “Where is your son James today?” The inference was clear.”

Renown Health v. Holland & Hart, LLP (Nev. 2019). “/ (0) 1947A er) complicated facts and procedural history of this case, we will only recount them as necessary to our disposition On appeal, appellants argue that the district court erred in granting respondents' motion for a directed verdict on appellants' claim for breach of…”

Renown Health v. Holland & Hart, LLP (Nev. 2019). “/ (0) 1947A er) complicated facts and procedural history of this case, we will only recount them as necessary to our disposition On appeal, appellants argue that the district court erred in granting respondents' motion for a directed verdict on appellants' claim for breach of…”

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.