NRS
50.315 Admissibility of affidavit or declaration offered to prove
certain facts concerning use of certain devices or withdrawal or holding of
evidence related to determining presence of alcohol, controlled substance,
chemical, poison, organic solvent or another prohibited substance.
1. Except as otherwise provided in
subsections 6 and 7, the affidavit or declaration of a person is admissible in
evidence in any criminal or administrative proceeding to prove:
(a) That the affiant or declarant has been
certified by the Director of the Department of Public Safety as being competent
to operate devices of a type certified by the Committee on Testing for
Intoxication as accurate and reliable for testing a person’s breath to
determine the concentration of alcohol in his or her breath;
(b) The identity of a person from whom the
affiant or declarant obtained a sample of breath; and
(c) That the affiant or declarant tested the
sample using a device of a type so certified and that the device was
functioning properly.
2. Except as otherwise provided in
subsections 6 and 7, the affidavit or declaration of a person who has examined
a prepared chemical solution or gas that has been used in calibrating, or
verifying the calibration of, a device for testing another’s breath to
determine the concentration of alcohol in his or her breath is admissible in
evidence in any criminal or administrative proceeding to prove:
(a) The occupation of the affiant or declarant;
and
(b) That the solution or gas has the chemical
composition necessary for use in accurately calibrating, or verifying the
calibration of, the device.
3. Except as otherwise provided in
subsections 6 and 7, the affidavit or declaration of a person who calibrates a
device for testing another’s breath to determine the concentration of alcohol
in his or her breath is admissible in evidence in any criminal or
administrative proceeding to prove:
(a) The occupation of the affiant or declarant;
(b) That on a specified date the affiant or
declarant calibrated the device at a named law enforcement agency by using the
procedures and equipment prescribed in the regulations of the Committee on
Testing for Intoxication;
(c) That the calibration was performed within the
period required by the Committee’s regulations; and
(d) Upon completing the calibration of the
device, it was operating properly.
4. Except as otherwise provided in
subsections 6 and 7, the affidavit or declaration made under the penalty of
perjury of a person who withdraws a sample of blood from another for analysis
by an expert as set forth in NRS 50.320
is admissible in any criminal or administrative proceeding to prove:
(a) The occupation of the affiant or declarant;
(b) The identity of the person from whom the
affiant or declarant withdrew the sample;
(c) The fact that the affiant or declarant kept
the sample in his or her sole custody or control and in substantially the same
condition as when he or she first obtained it until delivering it to another;
and
(d) The identity of the person to whom the
affiant or declarant delivered it.
5. Except as otherwise provided in
subsections 6 and 7, the affidavit or declaration of a person who receives from
another a sample of blood or urine or other tangible evidence that is alleged
to contain alcohol or a controlled substance, chemical, poison, organic solvent
or another prohibited substance may be admitted in any criminal or civil or
administrative proceeding to prove:
(a) The occupation of the affiant or declarant;
(b) The fact that the affiant or declarant
received a sample or other evidence from another person and kept it in his or
her sole custody or control in substantially the same condition as when he or
she first received it until delivering it to another; and
(c) The identity of the person to whom the
affiant or declarant delivered it.
6. If, not later than 10 days before the
date set for trial or such shorter time before the date set for trial as
authorized by the court, the defendant objects in writing to admitting into
evidence the affidavit or declaration, the court shall not admit the affidavit
or declaration into evidence and may order the prosecution to produce the
witness and may continue the trial for any time the court deems reasonably
necessary to receive such testimony. The time within which a trial is required
is extended by the time of the continuance.
7. During any trial in which the defendant
has been accused of committing a felony, the defendant may object in writing to
admitting into evidence an affidavit or declaration described in this section.
If the defendant makes such an objection, the court shall not admit the
affidavit or declaration into evidence and the prosecution may cause the person
to testify to any information contained in the affidavit or declaration.
8. The Committee on Testing for
Intoxication shall adopt regulations prescribing the form of the affidavits and
declarations described in this section.
(Added to NRS by 1971,
929, 2048;
A 1973,
891; 1975,
647; 1983,
1084, 1914;
1985,
1972; 1987,
798, 1544,
1579;
1989,
77; 1993,
84, 2079;
1995,
2712; 1997,
1419; 1999,
2468, 3400;
2001,
172, 2555;
2005,
2044; 2007,
396; 2013,
289; 2015,
2532)
Notes of Decisions
City of Las Vegas v. Walsh, 124 P.3d 203 (Nev. 2005).
· cites it 29× “District Court, we con *905 cluded that affidavits under NRS 50.315 contained such guarantees of trustworthiness.”
City of Las Vegas v. Walsh, 91 P.3d 591 (Nev. 2004).
· cites it 21× “After holding a hearing, the district court denied the petition, agreeing with the municipal court’s interpretation of NRS 50.315. The City appeals. DISCUSSION [Headnotes 1, 2] A district court’s decision to deny a writ petition is generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion…”
State, Dep't of Motor Vehs. v. Bremer, 942 P.2d 145 (Nev. 1997).
· cites it 20× “The DMV contends that the affidavit of the chemist was properly admitted at the administrative hearing pursuant to NRS 50.315, and that Santillanes is inapplicable because these proceedings were civil rather that criminal in nature.”
Derosa v. First Jud. Dist. Court, 985 P.2d 157 (Nev. 1999).
· cites it 15× “325 NRS 50.315, 50.320, and 50.325 provide relatively new statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule.”
State, Dep't of Motor Vehs. v. Vezeris, 720 P.2d 1208 (Nev. 1986).
· cites it 7× “uence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance as defined in chapter 453 of NRS, or a chemical, poison or organic solvent, and it is necessary to prove the existence of any alcohol or the existence or identity of a controlled substance, chemical, poison or organic…”
Estes v. State, 146 P.3d 1114 (Nev. 2006).
“3d 591, 595 (2004) (holding that a health care professional’s affidavit prepared pursuant to NRS 50.315(4) is admissible only if (1) the health care professional is unavailable to testify at trial, and (2) the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the health care…”
City of Las Vegas v. Walsh, 100 P.3d 658 (Nev. 2004).
· cites it 2× “However, we have determined that the opinion previously issued in this case should be modified to include the following language after the case citation in footnote 25 of the opinion: In DeRosa v. District Court, 115 Nev.”
City of Reno v. Howard, 2014 NV 12 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 32× “NRS 50.315(4) allows a declaration made under penalty of perjury by a person who collects blood from a subject for evidentiary testing to be admitted in evidence to prove the declarant's occupation, the identity of the subject, and that the declarant kept the sample in his…”
Raquepaw v. State, 843 P.2d 364 (Nev. 1992).
“ing liquor, a controlled substance or a chemical, poison or organic solvent, and it is necessary to prove: (a) The existence of any alcohol; (b) The quantity of a controlled substance; or (c) The existence or identity of a controlled substance, chemical, poison or organic…”
Sheriff, Clark Cnty. v. Byron, 571 P.2d 103 (Nev. 1977).
“” In order to establish probable cause that the accused committed the charged offense, it is not mandatory to introduce the contraband as physical evidence in the proceedings before the magistrate when, as here, the accused has represented that the item sold was a controlled…”
State, Dep't of Motor Vehs. & Pub. Saf. v. Tilp, 810 P.2d 771 (Nev. 1991).
“See NRS 50.315. 2 Pursuant to the prohibition against hearsay evidence, Tilp argues Officer McDonald should not have been allowed to tell the hearing officer that he was summoned to the area because other individuals had seen respondent drive his car into another automobile.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.315(1) — 1 case
State, Dep't of Motor Vehs. v. Bremer, 942 P.2d 145 (Nev. 1997).
“The DMV contends that the affidavit of the chemist was properly admitted at the administrative hearing pursuant to NRS 50.315, and that Santillanes is inapplicable because these proceedings were civil rather that criminal in nature.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.315(3) — 1 case
State, Dep't of Motor Vehs. v. Bremer, 942 P.2d 145 (Nev. 1997).
“The DMV contends that the affidavit of the chemist was properly admitted at the administrative hearing pursuant to NRS 50.315, and that Santillanes is inapplicable because these proceedings were civil rather that criminal in nature.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.315(4) — 5 cases
City of Las Vegas v. Walsh, 124 P.3d 203 (Nev. 2005).
“District Court, we con *905 cluded that affidavits under NRS 50.315 contained such guarantees of trustworthiness.”
City of Las Vegas v. Walsh, 91 P.3d 591 (Nev. 2004).
“After holding a hearing, the district court denied the petition, agreeing with the municipal court’s interpretation of NRS 50.315. The City appeals. DISCUSSION [Headnotes 1, 2] A district court’s decision to deny a writ petition is generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion…”
Estes v. State, 146 P.3d 1114 (Nev. 2006).
“3d 591, 595 (2004) (holding that a health care professional’s affidavit prepared pursuant to NRS 50.315(4) is admissible only if (1) the health care professional is unavailable to testify at trial, and (2) the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the health care…”
Derosa v. First Jud. Dist. Court, 985 P.2d 157 (Nev. 1999).
“325 NRS 50.315, 50.320, and 50.325 provide relatively new statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule.”
City of Reno v. Howard, 2014 NV 12 (Nev. 2014).
“NRS 50.315(4) allows a declaration made under penalty of perjury by a person who collects blood from a subject for evidentiary testing to be admitted in evidence to prove the declarant's occupation, the identity of the subject, and that the declarant kept the sample in his…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.315(4)(a) — 1 case
City of Las Vegas v. Walsh, 91 P.3d 591 (Nev. 2004).
“After holding a hearing, the district court denied the petition, agreeing with the municipal court’s interpretation of NRS 50.315. The City appeals. DISCUSSION [Headnotes 1, 2] A district court’s decision to deny a writ petition is generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.315(4)(c) — 1 case
City of Las Vegas v. Walsh, 91 P.3d 591 (Nev. 2004).
“After holding a hearing, the district court denied the petition, agreeing with the municipal court’s interpretation of NRS 50.315. The City appeals. DISCUSSION [Headnotes 1, 2] A district court’s decision to deny a writ petition is generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.315(5) — 2 cases
State, Dep't of Motor Vehs. v. Vezeris, 720 P.2d 1208 (Nev. 1986).
“uence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance as defined in chapter 453 of NRS, or a chemical, poison or organic solvent, and it is necessary to prove the existence of any alcohol or the existence or identity of a controlled substance, chemical, poison or organic…”
State, Dep't of Motor Vehs. v. Bremer, 942 P.2d 145 (Nev. 1997).
“The DMV contends that the affidavit of the chemist was properly admitted at the administrative hearing pursuant to NRS 50.315, and that Santillanes is inapplicable because these proceedings were civil rather that criminal in nature.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.315(6) — 4 cases
City of Las Vegas v. Walsh, 124 P.3d 203 (Nev. 2005).
“District Court, we con *905 cluded that affidavits under NRS 50.315 contained such guarantees of trustworthiness.”
City of Las Vegas v. Walsh, 91 P.3d 591 (Nev. 2004).
“After holding a hearing, the district court denied the petition, agreeing with the municipal court’s interpretation of NRS 50.315. The City appeals. DISCUSSION [Headnotes 1, 2] A district court’s decision to deny a writ petition is generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion…”
Derosa v. First Jud. Dist. Court, 985 P.2d 157 (Nev. 1999).
“325 NRS 50.315, 50.320, and 50.325 provide relatively new statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule.”
City of Reno v. Howard, 2014 NV 12 (Nev. 2014).
“NRS 50.315(4) allows a declaration made under penalty of perjury by a person who collects blood from a subject for evidentiary testing to be admitted in evidence to prove the declarant's occupation, the identity of the subject, and that the declarant kept the sample in his…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.315(7) — 2 cases
Derosa v. First Jud. Dist. Court, 985 P.2d 157 (Nev. 1999).
“325 NRS 50.315, 50.320, and 50.325 provide relatively new statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule.”
City of Las Vegas v. Walsh, 124 P.3d 203 (Nev. 2005).
“District Court, we con *905 cluded that affidavits under NRS 50.315 contained such guarantees of trustworthiness.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.315(8) — 1 case
City of Las Vegas v. Walsh, 124 P.3d 203 (Nev. 2005).
“District Court, we con *905 cluded that affidavits under NRS 50.315 contained such guarantees of trustworthiness.”
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.