Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.385

Admissibility; notice of unavailability or inability of child to testify

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

NRS 51.385 Admissibility; notice of unavailability or inability of child to testify.

1. In addition to any other provision for admissibility made by statute or rule of court, a statement made by a child under the age of 10 years describing any act of sexual conduct performed with or on the child or any act of physical abuse of the child is admissible in a criminal proceeding regarding that act of sexual conduct or physical abuse if:

(a) The court finds, in a hearing out of the presence of the jury, that the time, content and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness; and

(b) The child testifies at the proceeding or is unavailable or unable to testify.

2. In determining the trustworthiness of a statement, the court shall consider, without limitation, whether:

(a) The statement was spontaneous;

(b) The child was subjected to repetitive questioning;

(c) The child had a motive to fabricate;

(d) The child used terminology unexpected of a child of similar age; and

(e) The child was in a stable mental state.

3. If the child is unavailable or unable to testify, written notice must be given to the defendant at least 10 days before the trial of the prosecution’s intention to offer the statement in evidence.

(Added to NRS by 1985, 2132; A 2001, 702)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 37 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Braunstein v. State

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Braunstein v. State (2002) nev · cites it 24× “The requirement that the district court conduct a trustworthiness hearing before admitting the hearsay statements of a child-victim of sexual assault is found in NRS 51.385, which provides in relevant part: 1.”

Felix v. State (1993) nev · cites it 39× “These United States Supreme Court cases and NRS 51.385 compel us to reverse the convictions entered against Felix and Ontiveros.”

Lytle v. State (1991) nev · cites it 64× “Appellant contends that the admission of the child-victim's hearsay statements at trial was improper under NRS 51.385 and was violative of his rights under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Pantano v. State (2006) nev · cites it 20× “: In this appeal, we consider the constitutionality of NRS 51.385, which concerns admission of child-victim statements in criminal proceedings through the testimony of others.”

Gaxiola v. State (2005) nev · cites it 9× “On appeal, he asserts the following assignments of error: (1) NRS 51.385, which allows admission of a child sexual assault victim’s statements to third parties, violates the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution; 1 (2) jury instructions stating that a sexual…”

Rugamas v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark (2013) nev · cites it 22× “In this original writ proceeding, we consider whether the child-victim’s out-of-court statements were properly received by the grand jury on either of two grounds: as non-hearsay because they were inconsistent with the victim’s grand jury testimony or as admissible hearsay under…”

Bockting v. State (1993) nev · cites it 16× “More specifically, Bockting insisted that he was deprived of his right to cross-examine his stepdaughter because unreliable hearsay statements attributed to her were admitted into evidence pursuant to NRS 51.385. Concluding that Bockting’s arguments were merit-less, we ordered…”

Gerald P. VanPatten v. State of Indiana (2013) ind · cites it 6× “§ 46-16-220 (2011); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.385 (2004); operation; some apply only to out-of-court statements made by the child victim of the charged offense,2 but others apply to child witnesses as well as victims.”

Quevedo v. State (1997) nev · cites it 30× “The district court erred by not adhering to the mandate of NRS 51.385; consequently, the convictions must be reversed.”

Flores v. State (2005) nev · cites it 5× “” 14 NRS 51.385 tracks the Idaho v. Wright model: 1.”

Brust v. State (1992) nev · cites it 6× “In addition, he correctly contends that, at the very least, the court should have conducted a hearing as required under NRS 51.385. NRS 51.385(1) is an exception to the hearsay rule; it allows a child’s out-of-court statement describing sexual conduct to be admitted.”

AZUCENA (JOSE) VS. STATE (2019) nev · cites it 4× “Silver 1Azucena raises several other issues on appeal, including that the district court abused its discretion in admitting testimony at trial that exceeded the scope of NRS 51.385, and that his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence.”

Show all 37 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.385(1) — 10 cases

Braunstein v. State (2002) nev “The requirement that the district court conduct a trustworthiness hearing before admitting the hearsay statements of a child-victim of sexual assault is found in NRS 51.385, which provides in relevant part: 1.”

Gaxiola v. State (2005) nev “On appeal, he asserts the following assignments of error: (1) NRS 51.385, which allows admission of a child sexual assault victim’s statements to third parties, violates the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution; 1 (2) jury instructions stating that a sexual…”

Brust v. State (1992) nev “In addition, he correctly contends that, at the very least, the court should have conducted a hearing as required under NRS 51.385. NRS 51.385(1) is an exception to the hearsay rule; it allows a child’s out-of-court statement describing sexual conduct to be admitted.”

Lytle v. State (1991) nev “Appellant contends that the admission of the child-victim's hearsay statements at trial was improper under NRS 51.385 and was violative of his rights under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Rugamas v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark (2013) nev “In this original writ proceeding, we consider whether the child-victim’s out-of-court statements were properly received by the grand jury on either of two grounds: as non-hearsay because they were inconsistent with the victim’s grand jury testimony or as admissible hearsay under…”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.385(1)(a) — 3 cases

Lytle v. State (1991) nev “Appellant contends that the admission of the child-victim's hearsay statements at trial was improper under NRS 51.385 and was violative of his rights under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Pantano v. State (2006) nev “: In this appeal, we consider the constitutionality of NRS 51.385, which concerns admission of child-victim statements in criminal proceedings through the testimony of others.”

Jefferson (Brandon) v. State (2014) nev

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.385(1)(b) — 2 cases

Milewski (Richard) Vs. State (2020) nev

Branagan (Thomas) v. State (2015) nev

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.385(2) — 9 cases

Rugamas v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark (2013) nev “In this original writ proceeding, we consider whether the child-victim’s out-of-court statements were properly received by the grand jury on either of two grounds: as non-hearsay because they were inconsistent with the victim’s grand jury testimony or as admissible hearsay under…”

Thomas (Cameron) v. State (2019) nev

Burch v. Garrett (2022) nvd

Villegas (David) v. State (2014) nev

Milewski (Richard) Vs. State (2020) nev

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.385(2)(a) — 1 case

Jefferson (Brandon) v. State (2014) nev

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.385(3) — 2 cases

Burch v. Garrett (2022) nvd

Branagan (Thomas) v. State (2015) nev

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 51.385(l)(a) — 2 cases

Lytle v. State (1991) nev “Appellant contends that the admission of the child-victim's hearsay statements at trial was improper under NRS 51.385 and was violative of his rights under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Bockting v. State (1993) nev “More specifically, Bockting insisted that he was deprived of his right to cross-examine his stepdaughter because unreliable hearsay statements attributed to her were admitted into evidence pursuant to NRS 51.385. Concluding that Bockting’s arguments were merit-less, we ordered…”

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.