Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.135 (2026)
Prior statements of witness
✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 50.135 Prior statements of witness.
1. In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown or its contents disclosed to the witness, but on request the statement shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.
2. Extrinsic evidence of a prior contradictory statement by a witness is inadmissible unless:
(a) The statement fulfills all the conditions required by subsection 3 of NRS 51.035; or
(b) The witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness thereon.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 790)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1980–2020 · leading case: Crowley v. State, 83 P.3d 282 (Nev. 2004).
Crowley v. State, 83 P.3d 282 (Nev. 2004). “" Further, NRS 50.135(2) precludes admission of "[e]xtrinsic evidence of a prior contradictory statement by a witness" unless "[t]he statement fulfills all the conditions required by subsection 3 of NRS 51.”
Atkins v. State, 923 P.2d 1119 (Nev. 1996). “We conclude Mark Wattley's testimony regarding Shawn's prior inconsistent statements was admissible pursuant to NRS 50.135(2)(b). NRS 50.135(2)(b) states: 2.”
Lord v. State, 806 P.2d 548 (Nev. 1991). “See NRS 50.135. Here, however, we need not reach the issue of whether the district court erred in determining this to be impeachment on a collateral matter, because any error was manifestly harmless.”
LaPierre v. State, 836 P.2d 56 (Nev. 1992). “*532 NRS 50.135 1 allows the introduction of a prior contradictory statement of a witness.”
Burns v. State, 618 P.2d 881 (Nev. 1980). “It appears from the transcript of the trial that many of the witnesses (some of whom had testified up to five times previously with respect to this matter) were confused as to which previous statements defense counsel were inquiring about.”
Rugamas v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 305 P.3d 887 (Nev. 2013). “075 (cited in the district court’s order) and NRS 50.135. See Miranda, 101 Nev. at 567 , 707 P.”
Richard v. State, 424 P.3d 626 (Nev. 2018). “The district court allowed Weirauch to testify about Kinard's alleged identification of Richard pursuant to NRS 50.135(2), which provides in relevant part that [e]xtrinsic evidence of a prior contradictory statement by a witness is inadmissible unless: .”
Roever v. State, 963 P.2d 503 (Nev. 1998). “035(1) to determine whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues or of misleading the jury. This is a determination to be made by the trial judge.”
Richard (dvontae) Vs. State, 2018 NV 64 (Nev. 2018). “3 The district court was presumably referring to NRS 50.135(2). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 194Th 8 A: Yes, there was.”
Richard (dvontae) Vs. State, 2018 NV 64 (Nev. 2018). “3 The district court was presumably referring to NRS 50.135(2). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 194Th 8 A: Yes, there was.”
Rugamas v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., No. 62251 (Nev. July 3, 2013). “075 (cited in the district court's order) and NRS 50.135. See Miranda, 101 Nev. at 567 , 707 P.”
Virgil (Anthony) Vs. State C/W 78306, 462 P.3d 691 (Nev. 2020). “035(2)(a); NRS 50.135(2)(b); see also Crowley, 120 Nev.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.135(2): 6 cases
Crowley v. State, 83 P.3d 282 (Nev. 2004). “" Further, NRS 50.135(2) precludes admission of "[e]xtrinsic evidence of a prior contradictory statement by a witness" unless "[t]he statement fulfills all the conditions required by subsection 3 of NRS 51.”
Rugamas v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 305 P.3d 887 (Nev. 2013). “075 (cited in the district court’s order) and NRS 50.135. See Miranda, 101 Nev. at 567 , 707 P.”
Richard v. State, 424 P.3d 626 (Nev. 2018). “The district court allowed Weirauch to testify about Kinard's alleged identification of Richard pursuant to NRS 50.135(2), which provides in relevant part that [e]xtrinsic evidence of a prior contradictory statement by a witness is inadmissible unless: .”
Richard (dvontae) Vs. State, 2018 NV 64 (Nev. 2018). “3 The district court was presumably referring to NRS 50.135(2). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 194Th 8 A: Yes, there was.”
Richard (dvontae) Vs. State, 2018 NV 64 (Nev. 2018). “3 The district court was presumably referring to NRS 50.135(2). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 194Th 8 A: Yes, there was.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.135(2)(b): 7 cases
Atkins v. State, 923 P.2d 1119 (Nev. 1996). “We conclude Mark Wattley's testimony regarding Shawn's prior inconsistent statements was admissible pursuant to NRS 50.135(2)(b). NRS 50.135(2)(b) states: 2.”
Roever v. State, 963 P.2d 503 (Nev. 1998). “035(1) to determine whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues or of misleading the jury. This is a determination to be made by the trial judge.”
Richard v. State, 424 P.3d 626 (Nev. 2018). “The district court allowed Weirauch to testify about Kinard's alleged identification of Richard pursuant to NRS 50.135(2), which provides in relevant part that [e]xtrinsic evidence of a prior contradictory statement by a witness is inadmissible unless: .”
Richard (dvontae) Vs. State, 2018 NV 64 (Nev. 2018). “3 The district court was presumably referring to NRS 50.135(2). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 194Th 8 A: Yes, there was.”
Richard (dvontae) Vs. State, 2018 NV 64 (Nev. 2018). “3 The district court was presumably referring to NRS 50.135(2). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 194Th 8 A: Yes, there was.”
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.