Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 50 - WITNESSES
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.700 (2026)

Court may not order victim or witness to take or submit to psychological or psychiatric examination; exclusion of testimony of licensed psychologist, psychiatrist or clinical social worker; “sexual offense” defined

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 50.700  Court may not order victim or witness to take or submit to psychological or psychiatric examination; exclusion of testimony of licensed psychologist, psychiatrist or clinical social worker; “sexual offense” defined.

      1.  In any criminal or juvenile delinquency action relating to the commission of a sexual offense, a court may not order the victim of or a witness to the sexual offense to take or submit to a psychological or psychiatric examination.

      2.  The court may exclude the testimony of a licensed psychologist, psychiatrist or clinical social worker who performed a psychological or psychiatric examination on the victim or witness if:

      (a) There is a prima facie showing of a compelling need for an additional psychological or psychiatric examination of the victim or witness by a licensed psychologist, psychiatrist or clinical social worker; and

      (b) The victim or witness refuses to submit to an additional psychological or psychiatric examination by a licensed psychologist, psychiatrist or clinical social worker.

      3.  In determining whether there is a prima facie showing of a compelling need for an additional psychological or psychiatric examination of the victim or witness pursuant to subsection 2, the court must consider whether:

      (a) There is a reasonable basis for believing that the mental or emotional state of the victim or witness may have affected his or her ability to perceive and relate events relevant to the criminal prosecution; and

      (b) Any corroboration of the offense exists beyond the testimony of the victim or witness.

      4.  If the court determines there is a prima facie showing of a compelling need for an additional psychological or psychiatric examination of the victim or witness, the court shall issue a factual finding that details with particularity the reasons why an additional psychological or psychiatric examination of the victim or witness is warranted.

      5.  If the court issues a factual finding pursuant to subsection 4 and the victim or witness consents to an additional psychological or psychiatric examination, the court shall set the parameters for the examination consistent with the purpose of determining the ability of the victim or witness to perceive and relate events relevant to the criminal prosecution.

      6.  As used in this section, “sexual offense” includes, without limitation:

      (a) An offense that is found to be sexually motivated pursuant to NRS 175.547 or 207.193;

      (b) Sexual assault pursuant to NRS 200.366;

      (c) Statutory sexual seduction pursuant to NRS 200.368;

      (d) Battery with intent to commit sexual assault pursuant to NRS 200.400;

      (e) Abuse of a child pursuant to NRS 200.508, if the abuse involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation;

      (f) An offense involving child sexual abuse material pursuant to NRS 200.710 to 200.730, inclusive;

      (g) Fertility fraud pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of NRS 200.975;

      (h) Incest pursuant to NRS 201.180;

      (i) Open or gross lewdness pursuant to NRS 201.210;

      (j) Indecent or obscene exposure pursuant to NRS 201.220;

      (k) Lewdness with a child pursuant to NRS 201.230;

      (l) Pandering or sex trafficking of a child pursuant to NRS 201.300;

      (m) An offense involving the administration of a drug to another person with the intent to enable or assist the commission of a felony pursuant to NRS 200.405, if the felony is an offense listed in this section;

      (n) An offense involving the administration of a controlled substance to another person with the intent to enable or assist the commission of a crime of violence pursuant to NRS 200.408, if the crime of violence is an offense listed in this section;

      (o) Sexual penetration of a dead human body pursuant to NRS 201.450;

      (p) A violation of NRS 201.553;

      (q) Luring a child or a person with mental illness pursuant to NRS 201.560;

      (r) Any other offense that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual conduct with another person; or

      (s) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense listed in this subsection.

      (Added to NRS by 2015, 2244; A 2023, 1416, 2467; 2025, 757)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 2017–2020 · leading case: Lipsitz v. State, 442 P.3d 138 (Nev. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lipsitz v. State, 442 P.3d 138 (Nev. 2019). “As to his constitutional challenge to NRS 50.700 -the statutory prohibition on court-ordered psychological evaluations of victims of sexual assault-the record shows that Lipsitz never sought an examination, a point he concedes on appeal.”
McAfee (Leslie) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2019). · cites it 2× “ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the constitutionality of NRS 50.700, which prohibits court-ordered psychological examinations in criminal cases involving sexual offenses.”
McAfee (Leslie) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2019). · cites it 2× “ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the constitutionality of NRS 50.700, which prohibits court-ordered psychological examinations in criminal cases involving sexual offenses.”
Ward (Joshua) Vs. State (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “zo- 04970 1, § 8 of the Nevada Constitution2 and general references to due process, Ward does not provide relevant authority to support his argument that NRS 50.700 conflicts with the Nevada Constitution's due-process guarantee.”
Lipsitz (ryan) Vs. State, 2019 NV 17 (Nev. 2019). · cites it 2× “As to his constitutional challenge to NRS 50.700—the statutory prohibition on court-ordered psychological evaluations of victims of sexual assault—the record shows that Lipsitz never sought an examination, a point he concedes on appeal.”
State v. Dist. Ct. (Brown (Donald)) (Nev. 2017). “See NRS 50.700(1) (emphasis added). Therefore, I would clarify this issue of law.”
Biela (James) v. State (Death Penalty-Pc) (Nev. 2019). “NRS 50.700(1). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 10 (0) 1947A (0 psychiatric expert, (2) whether the evidence of the crime "is supported by little or no corroboration beyond the testimony of the victim," and (3) whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that the victim's mental or…”
Lipsitz (ryan) Vs. State, 2019 NV 17 (Nev. 2019). “As to his constitutional challenge to NRS 50.700—the statutory prohibition on court-ordered psychological evaluations of victims of sexual assault—the record shows that Lipsitz never sought an examination, a point he concedes on appeal.”
Chung (Binh) v. State (Nev. 2019). “700(1) states, "a court may not order the victim of or a witness to the sexual offense to take or 4 submit to a psychological or psychiatric examination.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.700(1) — 4 cases
State v. Dist. Ct. (Brown (Donald)) (Nev. 2017). “See NRS 50.700(1) (emphasis added). Therefore, I would clarify this issue of law.”
Biela (James) v. State (Death Penalty-Pc) (Nev. 2019). “NRS 50.700(1). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 10 (0) 1947A (0 psychiatric expert, (2) whether the evidence of the crime "is supported by little or no corroboration beyond the testimony of the victim," and (3) whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that the victim's mental or…”
Chung (Binh) v. State (Nev. 2019). “700(1) states, "a court may not order the victim of or a witness to the sexual offense to take or 4 submit to a psychological or psychiatric examination.”
Ward (Joshua) Vs. State (Nev. 2020). “zo- 04970 1, § 8 of the Nevada Constitution2 and general references to due process, Ward does not provide relevant authority to support his argument that NRS 50.700 conflicts with the Nevada Constitution's due-process guarantee.”
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.