Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.095 (2026)
Excited utterances
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 51.095 Excited utterances. A
statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant
was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition is not
inadmissible under the hearsay rule.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 794)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Medina v. State, 143 P.3d 471 (Nev. 2006).
Medina v. State, 143 P.3d 471 (Nev. 2006). “*351 Ryer’s statement to Golden that she was raped qualifies as an excited utterance Medina argues that the district court abused its discretion when it admitted statements made by Ryer to Golden pursuant to the excited utterance exception found in NRS 51.095. Medina contends…”
Evans v. State, 28 P.3d 498 (Nev. 2001). “[36] Evans also contests Alicia Ventura's testimony about her daughter Adriana's statements, but this evidence was admissible under NRS 51.095 because Adriana's statements were excited utterances made soon after she witnessed the murders.”
Ennis v. State, 137 P.3d 1095 (Nev. 2006). “[49] NRS 51.095 ("A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule.”
Browne v. State, 933 P.2d 187 (Nev. 1997). “See NRS 51.095. Goode's opinion about the marriage Jason contends that the present sense impression exception is inapplicable because Chantelle told her father about the physical abuse on the phone, after any domestic violence incidents actually took place.”
Rowland v. State, 39 P.3d 114 (Nev. 2002). “’ ” 15 Irvine’s statement “I know who did it” The excited utterance exception contained at NRS 51.095 provides that “[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition *43 made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition is not…”
Lamb v. State, 251 P.3d 700 (Nev. 2011). “Lamb conceded that it was admissible under NRS 51.095, the “excited utterance exception” to the hearsay rule, see Hogan, 103 Nev.”
Flores v. State, 120 P.3d 1170 (Nev. 2005). “345 (statements against interest), NRS 51.095 (excited utterances), and NRS 51.”
Felix v. State, 849 P.2d 220 (Nev. 1993). “Susan’s accusatory hearsay statements were testified to by her mother, Detective Coffey, psychologists Fisher and Payne, and Dr.”
Lopez v. State, 769 P.2d 1276 (Nev. 1989). “11 NRS 51.095 provides: “A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule.”
Franco v. State, 866 P.2d 247 (Nev. 1993). “” NRS 51.095. Here, Kim appeared excited by the events and immediately called her neighbor.”
Hogan v. State, 732 P.2d 422 (Nev. 1987). “Hinkley was admissible under NRS 51.095, the “excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule.”
Clem v. State, 760 P.2d 103 (Nev. 1988). “See NRS 51.095. The neighbor’s statements are independently admissible as there is no evidence that the woman would not be speaking the truth in a moment of crisis.”
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.