NRS
50.125 Writing used to refresh memory.
1. If a witness uses a writing to refresh
his or her memory:
(a) While testifying, an adverse party is
entitled:
(1) To have it produced at the hearing;
(2) To inspect it;
(3) To cross-examine the witness thereon;
and
(4) To introduce in evidence those
portions which relate to the testimony of the witness for the purpose of
affecting the witness’s credibility.
(b) Before testifying, if the judge in his or her
discretion determines that the interests of justice so require, an adverse
party is entitled:
(1) To have it produced at the hearing;
(2) To inspect it;
(3) To cross-examine the witness thereon;
and
(4) To introduce in evidence those
portions which relate to the testimony of the witness for the purpose of
affecting the witness’s credibility.
2. If it is claimed that the writing
contains matters not related to the subject matter of the testimony, the judge
shall examine the writing in chambers, excise any portions not so related, and
order delivery of the remainder to the party entitled thereto. Any portion
withheld over objections shall be preserved and made available to the appellate
court in the event of an appeal.
3. If a writing is not produced or
delivered pursuant to order under this section, the judge shall make any order
which justice requires, except that in criminal cases when the State elects not
to comply, the order shall be one:
(a) Striking the testimony; or
(b) If the judge in his or her discretion
determines that the interests of justice so require, declaring a mistrial.
(Added to NRS by 1971,
790; A 2015,
404)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2022 · leading case:
Means v. State, 103 P.3d 25 (Nev. 2004).
Means v. State, 103 P.3d 25 (Nev. 2004).
· cites it 7× “Under NRS 50.125, Means argues, he was entitled to inspect the notes and introduce them into evidence.”
Sipsas v. State, 716 P.2d 231 (Nev. 1986).
· cites it 4× “It appears from the record that the photograph was admitted pursuant to NRS 50.125(1)(d). 5 The photograph, however, was not used to refresh the memory of Dr.”
Jeremias v. State, 412 P.3d 43 (Nev. 2018).
“4 See NRS 50.125 (discussing the refreshing recollection doctrine).”
Barrett v. State, 776 P.2d 538 (Nev. 1989).
· cites it 4× “Thereafter, Barrett moved, pursuant to NRS 50.125, 2 for admission of the entire transcript of Carolyn’s testimony.”
Libby v. State, 975 P.2d 833 (Nev. 1999).
· cites it 2× “NRS 50.125 permits a witness to refresh his memory with a writing.”
Mulder v. State, 992 P.2d 845 (Nev. 2000).
“In his opening brief, Mulder points out that the “refresh recollection exception,” NRS 50.125, did not apply because the prosecutor failed to establish the need to refresh Van Heusen’s recollection.”
Las Vegas Sands v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2014 NV 13 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 77× “: In this opinion, we consider whether a witness's review of purportedly privileged documents prior to testifying constitutes a waiver of any privilege under NRS 50.125, such that the adverse party may demand production, be allowed to inspect the documents, cross-examine the…”
Myers v. Haskins, 513 P.3d 527 (Nev. 2022).
“3d 1259, 1264 (2014) (finding federal court interpretations of FRE 612 "instructive" in interpreting NRS 50.125— Nevada's parallel provision to FRE 612); Beazer Homes Neu.”
L v. Dev. Assocs. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2014 NV 37 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 36× “: This court recently addressed the intersection of NRS 50.125 and Nevada privilege law and concluded that "when invoked at a hearing,.”
L v. Dev. Assocs. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2014 NV 37 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 34× “: This court recently addressed the intersection of NRS 50.125 and Nevada privilege law and concluded that "when invoked at a hearing,.”
Myers v. Haskins (child Custody), 2022 NV 51 (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 3× “3d 1259, 1264 (2014) (finding federal court interpretations of FRE 612 “instructive” in interpreting NRS 50.125— Nevada's parallel provision to FRE 612); Beazer Homes Neu.”
Schlafer v. State, 979 P.2d 712 (Nev. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Although the State asserts that its conduct was proper pursuant to NRS 50.125 2 because it made Wallach’s notes available to the defense on the day that Wallach testified at trial, our inquiry does not end there.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.125(1) — 3 cases
Las Vegas Sands v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2014 NV 13 (Nev. 2014).
“: In this opinion, we consider whether a witness's review of purportedly privileged documents prior to testifying constitutes a waiver of any privilege under NRS 50.125, such that the adverse party may demand production, be allowed to inspect the documents, cross-examine the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.125(1)(b) — 1 case
Means v. State, 103 P.3d 25 (Nev. 2004).
“Under NRS 50.125, Means argues, he was entitled to inspect the notes and introduce them into evidence.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.125(1)(c) — 1 case
Means v. State, 103 P.3d 25 (Nev. 2004).
“Under NRS 50.125, Means argues, he was entitled to inspect the notes and introduce them into evidence.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.125(1)(d) — 3 cases
Sipsas v. State, 716 P.2d 231 (Nev. 1986).
“It appears from the record that the photograph was admitted pursuant to NRS 50.125(1)(d). 5 The photograph, however, was not used to refresh the memory of Dr.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.125(2) — 1 case
Means v. State, 103 P.3d 25 (Nev. 2004).
“Under NRS 50.125, Means argues, he was entitled to inspect the notes and introduce them into evidence.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.125(l)(b) — 1 case
Means v. State, 103 P.3d 25 (Nev. 2004).
“Under NRS 50.125, Means argues, he was entitled to inspect the notes and introduce them into evidence.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.125(l)(d) — 2 cases
Sipsas v. State, 716 P.2d 231 (Nev. 1986).
“It appears from the record that the photograph was admitted pursuant to NRS 50.125(1)(d). 5 The photograph, however, was not used to refresh the memory of Dr.”
Barrett v. State, 776 P.2d 538 (Nev. 1989).
“Thereafter, Barrett moved, pursuant to NRS 50.125, 2 for admission of the entire transcript of Carolyn’s testimony.”
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.