Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.345 (2026)

Expert testimony to show victim’s behavior or condition is consistent with behavior or condition of victim of sexual assault

✓ current as of July 2026

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

NRS 50.345 Expert testimony to show victim’s behavior or condition is consistent with behavior or condition of victim of sexual assault. In any prosecution for sexual assault, expert testimony is not inadmissible to show that the victim’s behavior or mental or physical condition is consistent with the behavior or condition of a victim of sexual assault.

(Added to NRS by 1985, 843)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1989–2020 · leading case: Perez v. State, 313 P.3d 862 (Nev. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Perez v. State, 313 P.3d 862 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 2× “345 (“In any prosecution for sexual assault, expert testimony is not inadmissible to show that the victim’s behavior or mental or physical condition is consistent with the behavior or condition of a victim of sexual assault.”). Dr. Paglini did not vouch for the victim’s veracity.”

Lickey v. State, 827 P.2d 824 (Nev. 1992). · cites it 2× “In child sexual assault cases, NRS 50.345 permits a treating health professional to testify that the *827 victim's behavior or condition is consistent with that of a sexual assault victim.”

Marvelle v. State, 966 P.2d 151 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 3× “Furthermore, NRS 50.345 specifically authorizes admission of the type of testimony offered by Casale as an appropriate response to the arguments offered by Marvelle.”

State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 97 P.3d 594 (Nev. 2004). “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 condition is consistent with the behavior or condition of a victim of sexual assault.”

Shannon v. State, 783 P.2d 942 (Nev. 1989). “Pursuant to NRS 50.345, if relevant, expert testimony is allowable to show that the victim’s behavior or mental condition is consistent with the behavior or condition of a victim of sexual assault.”

Guevara-Pontifes (Brandon) Vs. State, 472 P.3d 195 (Nev. 2020). “NRS 50.345. Guevara-Pontifes has not shown deficient performance or prejudice due to counsel omitting an objection on this basis that lacked merit.”

Jefferson (Brandon) v. State (Nev. 2014). · cites it 2× “NRS 50.345 provides that "[in any prosecution for sexual assault, expert testimony is not inadmissible to show that the victim's behavior or mental or physical condition is consistent with the behavior or condition of a victim of sexual assault.”

Perez v. State, 2013 NV 90 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 2× “345 ("In any prosecution for sexual assault, expert testimony is not inadmissible to show that the victim's behavior or mental or physical condition is consistent with the behavior or condition of a victim of sexual assault."). Dr.”

Hill (Rickie) v. State (Nev. 2016). “" NRS 50.345. The failure to make a futile objection is not ineffective assistance of counsel.”

Rylands (Jerold) v. State (Nev. 2017). “See NRS 50.345; Perez v. State, 129 Nev., Adv.”

Herndon (Thomas) v. State (Nev. 2017). “3d at 870 ; see also NRS 50.345. In this case, Dr. O'Donohue was permitted to testify extensively regarding suggestibility in children, and to explain how children are susceptible to suggestion.”

Follett (Loren) v. State (Nev. 2013). “035; see also NRS 50.345. To the extent Follett objects to the State failing to elicit the basis for the expert's testimony during direct examination, Follett could have elicited this information on cross- examination.”

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.