Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.295 (2026)
Opinions: Ultimate issues
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 50.295 Opinions: Ultimate issues. Testimony
in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not
objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier
of fact.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 793)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Pundyk (edward) Vs. State, 2020 NV 43 (Nev. 2020).
Pundyk (edward) Vs. State, 2020 NV 43 (Nev. 2020). “Pundyk opposed, arguing that NRS 50.295 expressly allows such testimony.”
Powers v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 962 P.2d 596 (Nev. 1998). “USAA cites in support of this position the advisory notes to Federal Rule of Evidence 704 (the model, claims USAA, for Nevada's enactment of NRS 50.295). The cited notes caution against "the admission of opinions which would merely tell the jury what result to reach, somewhat in…”
Porter v. State, 576 P.2d 275 (Nev. 1978). “See NRS 50.295; Southern Pacific, cited above, 83 Nev.”
Perez v. State, 313 P.3d 862 (Nev. 2013). “See NRS 50.295 (“Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.”
Estes v. State, 146 P.3d 1114 (Nev. 2006). “NRS 50.295 (permitting expert testimony on ultimate issues).”
Alford v. State, 906 P.2d 714 (Nev. 1995). “”) NRS 50.295 expressly permits the admission of expert testimony concerning a defendant’s intent at the time of committing a homicide.”
State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 97 P.3d 594 (Nev. 2004). “1981) (noting that the ability of the jury to observe and appraise the victim’s credibility safeguards a defendant’s rights). See NRS 50.345 (“In any prosecution for sexual assault, expert testimony is not inadmissible to show that the victim’s behavior or mental or physical…”
Woods (Leonard) Vs. State, 475 P.3d 397 (Nev. 2020). “" NRS 50.295. "[A] direct opinion on guilt in a criminal case [is] inadmissible .”
In Re Assad, 185 P.3d 1044 (Nev. 2008). “NRS 50.295 expressly permits expert testimony concerning the ultimate issue to be decided, and we perceive no reason why judicial ethics expert testimony should be singled out for exclusion on this basis.”
Assad v. Nevada Comm'n on Jud. Discipline, 185 P.3d 1044 (Nev. 2008). “NRS 50.295 expressly permits expert testimony concerning the ultimate issue to be decided, and we perceive no reason why judicial ethics expert testimony should be singled out for exclusion on this basis.”
Wrenn v. State, 506 P.2d 418 (Nev. 1973). “NRS 50.295: Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.”
Matadamas-serrano (ruben) v. State, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 20 (Nev. 2026). “275 (providing that a qualified expert may testify when “scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue”), so long as the evidence is “otherwise admissible,” NRS 50.295, and the witness…”
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.