Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.105 (2026)

Then existing mental, emotional or physical condition

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 51.105 Then existing mental, emotional or physical condition.

1. 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.

2. A statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed is inadmissible under the hearsay rule unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification or terms of declarant’s will.

(Added to NRS by 1971, 795)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Tabish v. State, 72 P.3d 584 (Nev. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tabish v. State, 72 P.3d 584 (Nev. 2003). · cites it 18× “In fact, the State argued at trial that once a statement is admitted under NRS 51.105, it may be considered for its truth.”

Lisle v. State, 941 P.2d 459 (Nev. 1997). · cites it 4× “State of mind exception NRS 51.105(1) states: "A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation or physical condition, such as intent .”

Weber v. State, 119 P.3d 107 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 2× “They were therefore admissible under NRS 51.105(1), which provides: "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…”

Carter v. State, 121 P.3d 592 (Nev. 2005). “30 See NRS 51.105(1). 31 See Qualls v. State, 114 Nev.”

Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023). · cites it 2× “See NRS 51.105(1). Maggie also argues that Jason did not meet his burden to show a substantial change in circumstances affecting H.”

Elvik v. State, 965 P.2d 281 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 2× “Moreover, NRS 51.105(1) provides that “[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.”

Lamb v. State, 251 P.3d 700 (Nev. 2011). “2d 388, 394 (1980) (murder victim’s statement of his fear of defendant was not admissible as non-hearsay under the state-of-mind exception in NRS 51.105(1) where the defendant did not claim self-defense, accidental death, or suicide).”

Walker v. State, 6 P.3d 477 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to NRS 51.105, a statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation or physical condition, such as intent, is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule.”

Walker v. State, 944 P.2d 762 (Nev. 1997). “Walker asserts that parts of the letter were admissible pursuant to NRS 51.105, the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, as statements of then-future intent.”

Howard Hughes Med. Inst. v. Gavin, 621 P.2d 489 (Nev. 1980). · cites it 2× “*908 While NRS 51.105(2) 2 makes hearsay evidence admissible relative to the execution, revocation, identification or terms of the declarant’s will, the testator’s declarations cannot be used to supply one of the credible witnesses required by NRS 136.”

Shults v. State, 616 P.2d 388 (Nev. 1980). “Moreover, the state of mind hearsay exception under NRS 51.105(1) gives no solace to the state.”

Lane v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, Washoe Cnty., 760 P.2d 1245 (Nev. 1988). “NRS 51.105 excepts from the hearsay rule statements of a declarant’s then existing state of mind or emotion such as intent, plan, design, motive or mental feeling.”

Show all 25 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.105(1) — 17 cases

Tabish v. State, 72 P.3d 584 (Nev. 2003). “In fact, the State argued at trial that once a statement is admitted under NRS 51.105, it may be considered for its truth.”

Lisle v. State, 941 P.2d 459 (Nev. 1997). “State of mind exception NRS 51.105(1) states: "A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation or physical condition, such as intent .”

Weber v. State, 119 P.3d 107 (Nev. 2005). “They were therefore admissible under NRS 51.105(1), which provides: "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…”

Carter v. State, 121 P.3d 592 (Nev. 2005). “30 See NRS 51.105(1). 31 See Qualls v. State, 114 Nev.”

Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023). “See NRS 51.105(1). Maggie also argues that Jason did not meet his burden to show a substantial change in circumstances affecting H.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.105(2) — 1 case

Howard Hughes Med. Inst. v. Gavin, 621 P.2d 489 (Nev. 1980). “*908 While NRS 51.105(2) 2 makes hearsay evidence admissible relative to the execution, revocation, identification or terms of the declarant’s will, the testator’s declarations cannot be used to supply one of the credible witnesses required by NRS 136.”

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.