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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.085 (2026)

Present sense impressions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 51.085  Present sense impressions.  A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 794)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2022 · leading case: Lisle v. State, 941 P.2d 459 (Nev. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lisle v. State, 941 P.2d 459 (Nev. 1997). · cites it 4× “Present sense impression exception NRS 51.085 states: "A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule.”
Browne v. State, 933 P.2d 187 (Nev. 1997). · cites it 2× “See NRS 51.085. The second set of hearsay statements concern a conversation Goode had with his daughter a few days prior to her death.”
Johnstone v. State, 548 P.2d 1362 (Nev. 1976). · cites it 2× “The provisions of NRS 51.085 to 51.305, inclusive, are illustrative and not restrictive of the exception provided by this section.”
Ramirez v. State, 958 P.2d 724 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 2× “The provisions of NRS 51.085 to 51.305, inclusive, are illustrative and not restrictive of the exception provided by this section.”
Cox v. Mgm Grand Hotel, LLC, 2022 NV 27 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 2× “They concluded that, while Rule 608(b) prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence of conduct to 3NRS 51.085(3) continues, stating: "They may, however, if relevant to truthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness or on cross-examination of a witness who…”
Griffith (Jason) v. State (Nev. 2016). “Similarly, "[a] statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation or physical condition, such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain and bodily health, is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule.”
Feazeal (Travis) Vs. State (Nev. 2019). “NRS 51.085 provides that "[a] statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule.”
Brock (Demetrius) Vs. State (Nev. 2019). “See NRS 51.085. Additionally, it was the witness's opinion about the victim's blame and not a description of the event.”
Brock v. Renee Baker (D. Nev. 2022). “See 10 NRS 51.085. Additionally, it was the witness’s opinion about the victim’s blame and not a description of the event.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.085(3) — 1 case
Cox v. Mgm Grand Hotel, LLC, 2022 NV 27 (Nev. 2022). “They concluded that, while Rule 608(b) prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence of conduct to 3NRS 51.085(3) continues, stating: "They may, however, if relevant to truthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness or on cross-examination of a witness who…”
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.