Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.090
Evidence of previous sexual conduct of victim of sexual assault or statutory sexual seduction inadmissible to challenge victim’s credibility; exceptions
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 50.090 Evidence of previous sexual conduct of victim of sexual assault
or statutory sexual seduction inadmissible to challenge victim’s credibility;
exceptions. In any prosecution for
sexual assault or statutory sexual seduction or for attempt to commit or
conspiracy to commit either crime, the accused may not present evidence of any
previous sexual conduct of the victim of the crime to challenge the victim’s
credibility as a witness unless the prosecutor has presented evidence or the
victim has testified concerning such conduct, or the absence of such conduct,
in which case the scope of the accused’s cross-examination of the victim or
rebuttal must be limited to the evidence presented by the prosecutor or victim.
(Added to NRS by 1975, 1132; A 1977, 1630; 1991, 126)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Sonia F. v. Eighth Judicial District Court
Sonia F. v. Eighth Judicial District Court (2009)
“We conclude that Nevada’s rape shield law, codified under NRS 50.090, is plain and unambiguous, and applies only to criminal proceedings and not civil cases.”
Summitt v. State (1985)
“The purposes of the "rape victim shield law" (NRS 50.090) would not have been frustrated by the terse admission of facts concerning the earlier experience since the child, then age four, was clearly a victim whose reputation would have been unaffected by such a disclosure.”
Miller v. State (1989)
“As a result, the district court ruled that any cross-examination of the complaining witness concerning prior rape or sexual abuse allegations was *89 precluded by NRS 50.090, [2] Nevada's rape shield statute.”
Johnson v. State (1997)
“NRS 50.090 provides, in pertinent part: In any prosecution for sexual assault.”
Abbott v. State (2006)
“NRS 50.090, Nevada's rape shield law, precludes admission of a victim's previous sexual conduct.”
Lane v. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County (1988)
“nted the case to the grand jury did so in a manner that, as a natural consequence, precluded the grand jury from knowing about or considering the testimony of the investigatory officers; (b) In presenting the case to the grand jury, the district attorney’s deputy also…”
Williams v. State (2018)
“The State objected that admitting this evidence would violate the rape shield statute, NRS 50.090, which generally prevents a defendant from using evidence of past sexual conduct to challenge the victim's credibility.”
Roever v. State (1998)
“They may, however, if relevant to truthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness himself or on cross-examination of a witness who testifies to an opinion of his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, subject to the general limitations upon relevant…”
Drake v. State (1992)
“NRS 50.090. We are not convinced, however, that the state’s arguments are well taken.”
Lobato v. State (2004)
“They may, however, if relevant to truthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness himself or on cross-examination of a witness who testifies to an opinion of his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, subject to the general limitations upon relevant…”
Brown v. State (1991)
“Under Miller , we concluded that evidence of false accusations of prior sexual abuse or assaults attributable to a complaining witness do not constitute "previous sexual conduct" for purposes of Nevada's rape shield law, NRS 50.”
Jezdik v. State (2005)
“They may, however, if relevant to truthfiilness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness himself or on cross-examination of a witness who testifies to an opinion of his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, subject to the general limitations upon relevant…”
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.