Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.115 (2026)

Mode and order of interrogation and presentation

✓ current as of July 2026

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

NRS 50.115 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation.

1. The judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence:

(a) To make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth;

(b) To avoid needless consumption of time; and

2. Cross-examination is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness, unless the judge in the exercise of discretion permits inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination.

3. Except as provided in subsection 4:

(a) Leading questions may not be used on the direct examination of a witness without the permission of the court.

(b) Leading questions are permitted on cross-examination.

4. Except that the prosecution may not call the accused in a criminal case, a party is entitled to call:

(a) An adverse party; or

(b) A witness identified with an adverse party,

Ê and interrogate by leading questions. The attorney for the adverse party may employ leading questions in cross-examining the party or witness so called only to the extent permissible if the attorney had called that person on direct examination.

(Added to NRS by 1971, 789; A 1979, 24)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 32 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Jeremias v. State, 412 P.3d 43 (Nev. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jeremias v. State, 412 P.3d 43 (Nev. 2018). “See NRS 50.115 (recognizing that the district court has discretion to control the questioning of witnesses).”

Rudin v. State, 86 P.3d 572 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 2× “2d 558, 566-67 (1990) (concluding that the "trial judge was appropriately controlling the flow of the trial without prejudice to" the defendant when it admonished counsel); NRS 50.115(1)(c) (providing that a judge must "exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of…”

Leonard v. State, 17 P.3d 397 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 2× “" Defense counsel clarified that the defense understood the court's ruling but that they would be making necessary objections as they arose.”

Funches v. State, 944 P.2d 775 (Nev. 1997). · cites it 6× “[1] Nevada has codified this prohibition in NRS 50.115(4), which states that "the prosecution may not call the accused in a criminal case.”

Manley v. State, 979 P.2d 703 (Nev. 1999). · cites it 4× “Although the prosecutor prefaced his questions with, "Did you tell your attorney ...?," he was merely pointing out the differences between appellant's testimony and the state's version of what occurred.”

Kaczmarek v. State, 91 P.3d 16 (Nev. 2004). “at 19 ; see also NRS 50.115(2) (generally limiting cross-examination to subject matter of direct examination and matters affecting witness’s credibility).”

Barry v. Lindner, 81 P.3d 537 (Nev. 2003). “3 The district court has the authority to control the interrogation of witnesses at trial under NRS 50.115, which provides in pertinent part: 1.”

Gojack v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, 596 P.2d 237 (Nev. 1979). · cites it 2× “2 NRS 50.115 provides, in relevant part: 1.”

Burns v. State, 618 P.2d 881 (Nev. 1980). · cites it 2× “135 was taken, indicates that the trial court has discretion, in its control over interrogation and the presentation of evidence, see NRS 50.115, to require that a witness be shown an allegedly inconsistent statement before being examined about it.”

Bridges v. State, 6 P.3d 1000 (Nev. 2000). “See NRS 50.115; see also NRS 48.015-,035. We reject Bridges’ argument that the district court was required to permit further questioning to show bias or emotional partiality of Laurie.”

Sena (christopher) v. State, 2022 NV 34 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 2× “" NRS 50.115(1). Additionally, the judiciary has the "inherent authority to adrninistrate its own procedures and to manage its own affairs, meaning that the judiciary may make rules and carry out other incidental powers when reasonable and necessary for the administration of…”

Barcus v. State, 550 P.2d 411 (Nev. 1976). “NRS 50.115(3) (a); Anderson, supra. 2. The thrust of Barcus’ contention regarding the prejudice of the trial judge is directed to two (2) comments the judge made to defense counsel when the victim was being cross-examined and counsel was endeavoring to elicit the details of the…”

Show all 32 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.115(1) — 7 cases

Sena (christopher) v. State, 2022 NV 34 (Nev. 2022). “" NRS 50.115(1). Additionally, the judiciary has the "inherent authority to adrninistrate its own procedures and to manage its own affairs, meaning that the judiciary may make rules and carry out other incidental powers when reasonable and necessary for the administration of…”

Gojack v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, 596 P.2d 237 (Nev. 1979). “2 NRS 50.115 provides, in relevant part: 1.”

Lopez v. Lopez, 541 P.3d 117 (Nev. 2023).

Durr (Terrell) Vs. State, 478 P.3d 871 (Nev. 2021).

Lopez v. Lopez (Nev. 2023).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.115(1)(c) — 1 case

Rudin v. State, 86 P.3d 572 (Nev. 2004). “2d 558, 566-67 (1990) (concluding that the "trial judge was appropriately controlling the flow of the trial without prejudice to" the defendant when it admonished counsel); NRS 50.115(1)(c) (providing that a judge must "exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of…”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.115(2) — 4 cases

Manley v. State, 979 P.2d 703 (Nev. 1999). “Although the prosecutor prefaced his questions with, "Did you tell your attorney ...?," he was merely pointing out the differences between appellant's testimony and the state's version of what occurred.”

Orth (Sean) v. Warden (Nev. 2016).

Cruz (Carim) v. State (Nev. 2018).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.115(3) — 1 case

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.115(3)(a) — 7 cases

Leonard v. State, 17 P.3d 397 (Nev. 2001). “" Defense counsel clarified that the defense understood the court's ruling but that they would be making necessary objections as they arose.”

Colvin (Michael) v. State (Nev. 2016).

Alexander (Ralph) v. State (Nev. 2017).

Palmer (Markiece) v. State (Nev. 2018).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.115(4) — 2 cases

Funches v. State, 944 P.2d 775 (Nev. 1997). “[1] Nevada has codified this prohibition in NRS 50.115(4), which states that "the prosecution may not call the accused in a criminal case.”

Palmer (Markiece) v. State (Nev. 2018).

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.