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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.295 (2026)

Judgment of previous conviction

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 51.295  Judgment of previous conviction.

      1.  Evidence of a final judgment, entered after trial or upon a plea of guilty or guilty but mentally ill, but not upon a plea of nolo contendere, adjudging a person guilty of a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule to prove any fact essential to sustain the judgment.

      2.  This section does not make admissible, when offered by the State in a criminal prosecution for purposes other than impeachment, a judgment against a person other than the accused.

      3.  The pendency of an appeal may be shown but does not affect admissibility.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 797; A 1995, 2466; 2003, 1480; 2007, 1436)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1985–2005 · leading case: Flores v. State, 120 P.3d 1170 (Nev. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Flores v. State, 120 P.3d 1170 (Nev. 2005). “215 (records of documents affecting interest in property); NRS 51.”
Rogers v. State, 705 P.2d 664 (Nev. 1985). “NRS 51.295. As such, it was admissible regardless of NRS 175.”
Jones v. State, 771 P.2d 154 (Nev. 1989). “125(2) (evidence of a plea of nolo contendere is not admissible in a civil or criminal *128 proceeding involving the person who made the plea); NRS 51.295(1) (evidence of a final judgment entered upon a plea of nolo contendere adjudging a person guilty of a felony is…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.295(1) — 1 case
Jones v. State, 771 P.2d 154 (Nev. 1989). “125(2) (evidence of a plea of nolo contendere is not admissible in a civil or criminal *128 proceeding involving the person who made the plea); NRS 51.295(1) (evidence of a final judgment entered upon a plea of nolo contendere adjudging a person guilty of a felony is…”
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.