Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.065
Competency: Juror as witness
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 50.065 Competency: Juror as witness.
1. A member of the jury shall not testify as a witness in the trial of the case in which the member of the jury is sitting as a juror. If the member of the jury is called to testify, the opposing party shall be afforded an opportunity to object out of the presence of the jury.
2. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment:
(a) A juror shall not testify concerning the effect of anything upon the juror’s or any other juror’s mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror’s mental processes in connection therewith.
(b) The affidavit or evidence of any statement by a juror indicating an effect of this kind is inadmissible for any purpose.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 788)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1979–2022 · leading case: Meyer v. State
Meyer v. State (2003)
“[19] The Nevada Legislature codified the common-law rules regarding admission of jury testimony to impeach a verdict in NRS 50.065. This court, interpreting NRS 50.”
Maestas v. State (2012)
“d what was presented in court; (4) the allegation that Ransom commented that Maestas would serve only a few years in prison and then be released to society if sentenced to life without parole was untrue and “any remark about what might happen to Maestas in the future was purely…”
Lamb v. State (2011)
“21 & 22, 456-57 (citing Williams-Davis and NRS 50.065, the Nevada analog to FRE 606(b)).”
Bushnell v. State (1979)
“The court apparently rejected the juror affidavit as incompetent evidence given by juror to impeach his own verdict.”
Tabish v. State (2003)
“, that the defendants did nothing to aid Theodore Binion as he lay dying, improperly require us to delve into the thought processes of the jurors in violation of NRS 50.065(2). As to the claims of juror misconduct in connection with the use of a palm pilot computer, this…”
Tarango v. McDaniel (2016)
“2 pursuant to a provision of the Nevada Code of Evidence, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.065 , which prohibits the admission for any purpose of testimony, affidavits, or evidence of any statement by a juror indicating an effect on the jury’s deliberative process.”
S. J. Amoroso Construction Co. v. Lazovich & Lazovich (1991)
“On appeal, Amoroso asserts that, (1) insufficient evidence was produced at trial to sustain a finding of clear and convincing *297 evidence of fraud; (2) the court should have stricken the punitive damages award because punitive damages should only be permitted in cases of…”
Harrison v. Gillespie (2011)
“The first statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.065 , prohibits inquiry as to the juror’s mental processes.”
Echavarria v. State (1992)
“At the evidentiary hearing, the court excluded Pool’s statements regarding her reason for voting for the death penalty as violative of NRS 50.065(2), which prohibits consideration of affidavits or testimony of jurors concerning their mental processes or state of mind in reaching…”
Barker v. State (1979)
“All of the Nevada authority cited by the state precedes the adoption by the legislature, in 1971, of NRS 50.065, subd. 2, which provides: *312 Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment: (a) A juror shall not testify concerning the effect of anything upon his…”
Manuel Tarango, Jr. v. E. McDaniel (2016)
“2 pursuant to a provision of the Nevada Code of Evidence, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.065 , which prohibits the admission for any purpose of testimony, affidavits, or evidence of any statement by a juror indicating an effect on the jury’s deliberative process.”
Riebel v. State (1990)
“To begin, when this court is inquiring into the validity of a verdict, NRS 50.065(2) prohibits consideration of affidavits or testimony of jurors concerning their mental processes or state of mind in reaching the verdict.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.065(2) — 13 cases
Maestas v. State (2012)
“d what was presented in court; (4) the allegation that Ransom commented that Maestas would serve only a few years in prison and then be released to society if sentenced to life without parole was untrue and “any remark about what might happen to Maestas in the future was purely…”
Tabish v. State (2003)
“, that the defendants did nothing to aid Theodore Binion as he lay dying, improperly require us to delve into the thought processes of the jurors in violation of NRS 50.065(2). As to the claims of juror misconduct in connection with the use of a palm pilot computer, this…”
Bushnell v. State (1979)
“The court apparently rejected the juror affidavit as incompetent evidence given by juror to impeach his own verdict.”
Echavarria v. State (1992)
“At the evidentiary hearing, the court excluded Pool’s statements regarding her reason for voting for the death penalty as violative of NRS 50.065(2), which prohibits consideration of affidavits or testimony of jurors concerning their mental processes or state of mind in reaching…”
S. J. Amoroso Construction Co. v. Lazovich & Lazovich (1991)
“On appeal, Amoroso asserts that, (1) insufficient evidence was produced at trial to sustain a finding of clear and convincing *297 evidence of fraud; (2) the court should have stricken the punitive damages award because punitive damages should only be permitted in cases of…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.065(2)(a) — 2 cases
S. J. Amoroso Construction Co. v. Lazovich & Lazovich (1991)
“On appeal, Amoroso asserts that, (1) insufficient evidence was produced at trial to sustain a finding of clear and convincing *297 evidence of fraud; (2) the court should have stricken the punitive damages award because punitive damages should only be permitted in cases 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.