Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.085 (2026)

Evidence of character and conduct of witness

✓ current as of July 2026

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

NRS 50.085 Evidence of character and conduct of witness.

1. Opinion evidence as to the character of a witness is admissible to attack or support the witness’s credibility but subject to these limitations:

(a) Opinions are limited to truthfulness or untruthfulness; and

(b) Opinions of truthful character are admissible only after the introduction of opinion evidence of untruthfulness or other evidence impugning the witness’s character for truthfulness.

2. Evidence of the reputation of a witness for truthfulness or untruthfulness is inadmissible.

3. Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness’s credibility, other than conviction of crime, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, if relevant to truthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness or on cross-examination of a witness who testifies to an opinion of his or her character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, subject to the general limitations upon relevant evidence and the limitations upon interrogation and subject to the provisions of NRS 50.090.

(Added to NRS by 1971, 789; A 1975, 1132)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 59 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Butler v. State, 102 P.3d 71 (Nev. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Butler v. State, 102 P.3d 71 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 10× “[10] However, because the crime of forgery involves dishonesty, the State maintains that the questioning went to Wilson's veracity and that pursuant to NRS 50.085 the trial court properly overruled Butler's objection.”

Miller v. State, 779 P.2d 87 (Nev. 1989). · cites it 8× “To the extent that our holding transcends the limitations of NRS 50.085(3), we carve out an exception for sexual assault cases.”

Roever v. State, 963 P.2d 503 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 24× “Only portions of Phillips' testimony discussed Roever's propensity toward untruthfulness and, therefore, could properly be used as impeachment against Roever if she testifies again and her testimony is in the proper form.”

Nevada v. Jackson, 133 S. Ct. 1990 (2013). · cites it 3× “66; see Nev. Rev. Stat. §50.085 (3) (2011). The purpose of that rule, the Nevada Supreme Court has explained, “is to focus the fact-finder on the most impor- tant facts and conserve ‘judicial resources by avoiding mini- trials on collateral issues.”

Lobato v. State, 96 P.3d 765 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 6× “Later in the proceedings, when Lobato attempted to present her expert’s preliminary opinion that Martin wrote the contested letters, the district court excluded any extrinsic evidence concerning authorship of the letters as collateral to the proceedings under NRS 50.085(3). 5…”

Jezdik v. State, 110 P.3d 1058 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 7× “045 and improper impeachment under NRS 50.085. The State argues that neither of these provisions applies because the State introduced the testimony to rebut Jezdik’s own testimony on direct examination.”

Patterson v. State, 907 P.2d 984 (Nev. 1995). · cites it 7× “Reputation Evidence While a witness may, under certain conditions, give an opinion of another witness’ truthfulness, NRS 50.085 (1), a witness may not testify of another witness’ reputation for truthfulness.”

Donald Sherman v. William Gittere, 92 F.4th 868 (9th Cir. 2024). · cites it 6× “The panel wrote the Nevada Supreme Court’s rulings on the exclusion of the evidence under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.085 (3) (generally prohibiting the use of extrinsic evidence to prove specific instances of conduct to undermine a witness’s credibility) and Nev Rev.”

Greene v. State, 931 P.2d 54 (Nev. 1997). · cites it 4× “" Greene argues that the evidence is admissible pursuant to NRS 50.085(3). [3] *60 In the prior unrelated case, Barker had been asked whether she had taken any drugs before giving testimony, to which she answered no.”

Daly v. State, 665 P.2d 798 (Nev. 1983). · cites it 4× “Opinion evidence as to the character of a witness is admissible to attack or support his credibility but subject to these limitations: (a) Opinions are limited to truthfulness or untruthfulness; and (b) Opinions of truthful character are admissible only after the introduction of…”

Mitchell v. State, 192 P.3d 721 (Nev. 2008). · cites it 2× “055(1) or NRS 50.085 because the State questioned Mitchell about a specific instance of past conduct, *818 the prank 911 call, and the conduct was relevant to whether he was a truthful person (i.”

State v. Thomas L. Scott (077434) (Monmouth & Statewide), 163 A.3d 325 (N.J. 2017). “§ 27 - 608(2); Nevada, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.085 (3); New Hampshire, N.”

Show all 59 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.085(1) — 2 cases

Roever v. State, 963 P.2d 503 (Nev. 1998). “Only portions of Phillips' testimony discussed Roever's propensity toward untruthfulness and, therefore, could properly be used as impeachment against Roever if she testifies again and her testimony is in the proper form.”

Mcnair (Michael) v. State (Nev. 2022).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.085(1)(a) — 1 case

Sterling v. State, 834 P.2d 400 (Nev. 1992).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.085(1)(a)(b) — 1 case

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.085(1)(b) — 1 case

Kincade (Michael) v. State (Nev. 2014).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.085(2) — 2 cases

Patterson v. State, 907 P.2d 984 (Nev. 1995). “Reputation Evidence While a witness may, under certain conditions, give an opinion of another witness’ truthfulness, NRS 50.085 (1), a witness may not testify of another witness’ reputation for truthfulness.”

Koerschner v. State, 13 P.3d 451 (Nev. 2000).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.085(3) — 45 cases

Butler v. State, 102 P.3d 71 (Nev. 2004). “[10] However, because the crime of forgery involves dishonesty, the State maintains that the questioning went to Wilson's veracity and that pursuant to NRS 50.085 the trial court properly overruled Butler's objection.”

Miller v. State, 779 P.2d 87 (Nev. 1989). “To the extent that our holding transcends the limitations of NRS 50.085(3), we carve out an exception for sexual assault cases.”

Lobato v. State, 96 P.3d 765 (Nev. 2004). “Later in the proceedings, when Lobato attempted to present her expert’s preliminary opinion that Martin wrote the contested letters, the district court excluded any extrinsic evidence concerning authorship of the letters as collateral to the proceedings under NRS 50.085(3). 5…”

Jezdik v. State, 110 P.3d 1058 (Nev. 2005). “045 and improper impeachment under NRS 50.085. The State argues that neither of these provisions applies because the State introduced the testimony to rebut Jezdik’s own testimony on direct examination.”

Greene v. State, 931 P.2d 54 (Nev. 1997). “" Greene argues that the evidence is admissible pursuant to NRS 50.085(3). [3] *60 In the prior unrelated case, Barker had been asked whether she had taken any drugs before giving testimony, to which she answered no.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.085(l)(a) — 1 case

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.085(l)(b) — 1 case

Barrett v. State, 776 P.2d 538 (Nev. 1989).

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.