NRS
50.580 Standards for determining whether child witness may testify by
alternative method.
1. In a criminal proceeding, the presiding
officer may allow a child witness to testify by an alternative method only in
the following situations:
(a) The child may testify otherwise than in an
open forum in the presence and full view of the finder of fact if the presiding
officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child would suffer
serious emotional trauma that would substantially impair the child’s ability to
communicate with the finder of fact if required to testify in the open forum.
(b) The child may testify other than face-to-face
with the defendant if the presiding officer finds by clear and convincing
evidence that the child would suffer serious emotional trauma that would
substantially impair the child’s ability to communicate with the finder of fact
if required to be confronted face-to-face by the defendant.
2. In a noncriminal proceeding, the
presiding officer may allow a child witness to testify by an alternative method
if the presiding officer finds by a preponderance of the evidence that allowing
the child to testify by an alternative method is necessary to serve the best
interests of the child or enable the child to communicate with the finder of
fact. In making this finding, the presiding officer shall consider:
(a) The nature of the proceeding;
(b) The age and maturity of the child;
(c) The relationship of the child to the parties
in the proceeding;
(d) The nature and degree of emotional trauma
that the child may suffer in testifying; and
(e) Any other relevant factor.
(Added to NRS by 2003,
989)
Notes of Decisions
Gordon Vs. Geiger (child Custody), 2017 NV 69 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 2× “See NRS 50.580(2)(a)- (e). If the judge makes a satisfactory finding, he or she must consider additional statutory factors to determine whether a child should be allowed to testify by an alternative method.”
Downs, II (Robert) v. State (Nev. 2017).
“The district court did not err in allowing the child to testify via Skype Downs argues that the district court erred in permitting the child to testify via Skype from England because (1) it failed to show that the child would "suffer serious emotional trauma that would…”
Gordon Vs. Geiger (child Custody), 2017 NV 69 (Nev. 2017).
“See NRS 50.580(2)(a)- (e). If the judge makes a satisfactory finding, he or she must consider additional statutory factors to determine whether a child should be allowed to testify by an alternative method.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.580(1) — 2 cases
Downs, II (Robert) v. State (Nev. 2017).
“The district court did not err in allowing the child to testify via Skype Downs argues that the district court erred in permitting the child to testify via Skype from England because (1) it failed to show that the child would "suffer serious emotional trauma that would…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.580(2)(a) — 2 cases
Gordon Vs. Geiger (child Custody), 2017 NV 69 (Nev. 2017).
“See NRS 50.580(2)(a)- (e). If the judge makes a satisfactory finding, he or she must consider additional statutory factors to determine whether a child should be allowed to testify by an alternative method.”
Gordon Vs. Geiger (child Custody), 2017 NV 69 (Nev. 2017).
“See NRS 50.580(2)(a)- (e). If the judge makes a satisfactory finding, he or she must consider additional statutory factors to determine whether a child should be allowed to testify by an alternative method.”
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.