Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 51 - HEARSAY
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.035 (2026)

“Hearsay” defined

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 51.035  “Hearsay” defined.  “Hearsay” means a statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless:

      1.  The statement is one made by a witness while testifying at the trial or hearing;

      2.  The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is:

      (a) Inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony;

      (b) Consistent with the declarant’s testimony and offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive;

      (c) One of identification of a person made soon after perceiving the person; or

      (d) A transcript of testimony given under oath at a trial or hearing or before a grand jury; or

      3.  The statement is offered against a party and is:

      (a) The party’s own statement, in either the party’s individual or a representative capacity;

      (b) A statement of which the party has manifested adoption or belief in its truth;

      (c) A statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject;

      (d) A statement by the party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the party’s agency or employment, made before the termination of the relationship; or

      (e) A statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 793)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 214 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Crowley v. State, 83 P.3d 282 (Nev. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Crowley v. State, 83 P.3d 282 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 14× “" [13] NRS 51.035 defines hearsay as "a statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”
Holmes v. State, 306 P.3d 415 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 11× “The district court determined that the jury could reasonably view the lyrics as factual, not fictional, and that, if it did, the jury could find that the lyrics amounted to a statement by Holmes, see NRS 51.035(3)(a) (party statements are non-hearsay when offered against the…”
Weber v. State, 119 P.3d 107 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 6× “[18] NRS 51.035; Franco v. State, 109 Nev. 1229, 1236 , 866 P.”
Glover v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of State, 220 P.3d 684 (Nev. 2009). · cites it 8× “Implicit in Glover's negative-inference argument was that the jury should accept his unadmitted out-of-court statement as a species of prior consistent statement—that the jurors should infer that the State did not show them the tape because Glover's statement to the police…”
Atkins v. State, 923 P.2d 1119 (Nev. 1996). · cites it 16× “We note that prior inconsistent statements under NRS 51.035(2) (a) may be admissible for both substantive and impeachment purposes.”
Evans v. State, 28 P.3d 498 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 4× “[35] See NRS 51.035(2)(b). [36] Cf. Patterson v. State, 111 Nev.”
Belcher, Jr. (norman) Vs. State (death Penalty-direct), 2020 NV 31 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 4× “NRS 51.035 (providing that hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered "to prove the truth of the matter asserted"); United States v.”
Byford v. State, 994 P.2d 700 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 4× “For example, NRS 51.035(3) allows a statement made by or attributable to a party to be offered against that party, but Williams did not offer Byford's prior testimony against Byford, but against the State.”
Rugamas v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 305 P.3d 887 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 10× “” NRS 51.035. Under Nevada law, a grand jury cannot receive hearsay.”
Rodriguez v. State, 273 P.3d 845 (Nev. 2012). · cites it 4× “Nevada generally defines “[hjearsay” in NRS 51.035 as “a statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”
Leonard v. State, 17 P.3d 397 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 4× “" NRS 51.035(2)(b) see also Patterson v. State, 111 Nev.”
Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 138 P.3d 433 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 2× “NRS 51.035 (“ ‘Hearsay’ means a statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted .”
Show all 214 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.035(1) — 1 case
White (Troy) v. State (Nev. 2017).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.035(2) — 11 cases
Atkins v. State, 923 P.2d 1119 (Nev. 1996). “We note that prior inconsistent statements under NRS 51.035(2) (a) may be admissible for both substantive and impeachment purposes.”
Rugamas v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 305 P.3d 887 (Nev. 2013). “” NRS 51.035. Under Nevada law, a grand jury cannot receive hearsay.”
Maginnis v. State, 561 P.2d 922 (Nev. 1977).
Jacobs v. State, 705 P.2d 130 (Nev. 1985).
Richard v. State, 424 P.3d 626 (Nev. 2018).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.035(2)(a) — 34 cases
Crowley v. State, 83 P.3d 282 (Nev. 2004). “" [13] NRS 51.035 defines hearsay as "a statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”
Atkins v. State, 923 P.2d 1119 (Nev. 1996). “We note that prior inconsistent statements under NRS 51.035(2) (a) may be admissible for both substantive and impeachment purposes.”
Rugamas v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 305 P.3d 887 (Nev. 2013). “” NRS 51.035. Under Nevada law, a grand jury cannot receive hearsay.”
Miranda v. State, 707 P.2d 1121 (Nev. 1985).
Carter v. State, 121 P.3d 592 (Nev. 2005).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.035(2)(b) — 20 cases
Glover v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of State, 220 P.3d 684 (Nev. 2009). “Implicit in Glover's negative-inference argument was that the jury should accept his unadmitted out-of-court statement as a species of prior consistent statement—that the jurors should infer that the State did not show them the tape because Glover's statement to the police…”
Evans v. State, 28 P.3d 498 (Nev. 2001). “[35] See NRS 51.035(2)(b). [36] Cf. Patterson v. State, 111 Nev.”
Cunningham v. State, 683 P.2d 500 (Nev. 1984).
Leonard v. State, 17 P.3d 397 (Nev. 2001). “" NRS 51.035(2)(b) see also Patterson v. State, 111 Nev.”
Cheatham v. State, 761 P.2d 419 (Nev. 1988).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.035(2)(c) — 4 cases
Richard v. State, 424 P.3d 626 (Nev. 2018).
Jones v. State, 591 P.2d 263 (Nev. 1979).
Richard (dvontae) Vs. State, 2018 NV 64 (Nev. 2018).
Richard (dvontae) Vs. State, 2018 NV 64 (Nev. 2018).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.035(2)(d) — 5 cases
Levi v. State, 602 P.2d 189 (Nev. 1979).
Mulder v. State, 992 P.2d 845 (Nev. 2000).
Maginnis v. State, 561 P.2d 922 (Nev. 1977).
Collman (Thomas) Vs. State (Nev. 2020).
Fox (Derek) Vs. State, 484 P.3d 277 (Nev. 2021).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.035(3) — 14 cases
Byford v. State, 994 P.2d 700 (Nev. 2000). “For example, NRS 51.035(3) allows a statement made by or attributable to a party to be offered against that party, but Williams did not offer Byford's prior testimony against Byford, but against the State.”
Leonard v. State, 17 P.3d 397 (Nev. 2001). “" NRS 51.035(2)(b) see also Patterson v. State, 111 Nev.”
Glover v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of State, 220 P.3d 684 (Nev. 2009). “Implicit in Glover's negative-inference argument was that the jury should accept his unadmitted out-of-court statement as a species of prior consistent statement—that the jurors should infer that the State did not show them the tape because Glover's statement to the police…”
Fish v. State, 549 P.2d 338 (Nev. 1976).
LaPena v. State, 544 P.2d 1187 (Nev. 1976).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.035(3)(a) — 31 cases
Weber v. State, 119 P.3d 107 (Nev. 2005). “[18] NRS 51.035; Franco v. State, 109 Nev. 1229, 1236 , 866 P.”
Belcher, Jr. (norman) Vs. State (death Penalty-direct), 2020 NV 31 (Nev. 2020). “NRS 51.035 (providing that hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered "to prove the truth of the matter asserted"); United States v.”
Byford v. State, 994 P.2d 700 (Nev. 2000). “For example, NRS 51.035(3) allows a statement made by or attributable to a party to be offered against that party, but Williams did not offer Byford's prior testimony against Byford, but against the State.”
Glover v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of State, 220 P.3d 684 (Nev. 2009). “Implicit in Glover's negative-inference argument was that the jury should accept his unadmitted out-of-court statement as a species of prior consistent statement—that the jurors should infer that the State did not show them the tape because Glover's statement to the police…”
Holmes v. State, 306 P.3d 415 (Nev. 2013). “The district court determined that the jury could reasonably view the lyrics as factual, not fictional, and that, if it did, the jury could find that the lyrics amounted to a statement by Holmes, see NRS 51.035(3)(a) (party statements are non-hearsay when offered against the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.035(3)(b) — 6 cases
Rodriguez v. State, 273 P.3d 845 (Nev. 2012). “Nevada generally defines “[hjearsay” in NRS 51.035 as “a statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”
Harrison v. State, 608 P.2d 1107 (Nev. 1980).
Talley (omar) v. State, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 61 (Nev. 2025).
Harlan (Kody) v. State (Nev. 2022).
Hidalgo v. Garrett (D. Nev. 2022).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.035(3)(d) — 4 cases
Palmer v. Pioneer Inn Assocs., Ltd., 59 P.3d 1237 (Nev. 2002).
Palmer v. Pioneer Hotel & Casino, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (D. Nev. 1998).
Paul v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 908 P.2d 226 (Nev. 1995).
Hidalgo v. Garrett (D. Nev. 2022).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.035(3)(e) — 25 cases
Holmes v. State, 306 P.3d 415 (Nev. 2013). “The district court determined that the jury could reasonably view the lyrics as factual, not fictional, and that, if it did, the jury could find that the lyrics amounted to a statement by Holmes, see NRS 51.035(3)(a) (party statements are non-hearsay when offered against the…”
Evans v. State, 28 P.3d 498 (Nev. 2001). “[35] See NRS 51.035(2)(b). [36] Cf. Patterson v. State, 111 Nev.”
Lord v. State, 806 P.2d 548 (Nev. 1991).
Crew v. State, 675 P.2d 986 (Nev. 1984).
McDowell v. State, 746 P.2d 149 (Nev. 1987).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.035(3Xe) — 1 case
Cranford v. State, 596 P.2d 489 (Nev. 1979).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.035(b) — 1 case
Peterson v. State, 744 P.2d 1259 (Nev. 1987).
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.