Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 52 - DOCUMENTARY AND OTHER PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 52.015

Authentication or identification required

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 52.015  Authentication or identification required.

      1.  The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence or other showing sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.

      2.  The provisions of NRS 52.025 to 52.105, inclusive, are illustrative and not restrictive examples of authentication or identification which conform to the requirements of this section.

      3.  Every authentication or identification is rebuttable by evidence or other showing sufficient to support a contrary finding.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 798)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Rodriguez v. State
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rodriguez v. State (2012) nev · cites it 5× “In particular, we conclude that text messages are *157 subject to the same authentication requirements under NRS 52.015(1) as other documents, including proof of authorship.”
Lopez v. State (1989) nev · cites it 4× “4 It is far from clear that NRAP 10(c) mandates the application of NRS 52.015 (authentication and identification) to attempts to reconstruct the trial record.”
Archanian v. State (2006) nev · cites it 2× “*1030 Additionally, Archanian contends that the district court violated NRS 52.015 because the composite videotape was not properly authenticated.”
BLIGE v. TERRY (2023) nev · cites it 2× “” NRS 52.015(1). “The testimony of a witness is sufficient for authentication or identification if the witness has personal knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be.”
Lamb v. State (2011) nev “235, and the voluminous writings recovered from Lamb’s apartment, car, and storage unit were adequately authenticated under NRS 52.015(1), NRS 52.055, at the preliminary hearing, and, ultimately, by Lamb on the witness stand.”
Frias v. Valle (1985) nev · cites it 2× “Because these thermograms were not authenticated and no proper foundation was laid for their use in testimony, we conclude their admission in evidence violated NRS 52.015 1 and was error. Lastly, we hold that the lower court properly exercised its discretion in excluding…”
Wickliffe Ex Rel. Heirs of the Estate v. Sunrise Hospital, Inc. (1985) nev · cites it 3× “NRS 52.015. 3 According to an offer of proof, Nurse Woods would have testified that the rolodex was the manual in effect in 1978.”
Lopez v. Lopez (2023) nevapp “NRS 52.015(1). "[W]e review a district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion.”
BROWN (LARRY) v. STATE (2022) nev · cites it 4× “070(1); NRS 52.015(1), and the jury would be asked to come to a conclusion that is beyond its ability, knowledge, and common sense.”
TALLEY (OMAR) v. STATE (2025) nev · cites it 4× “NRS 52.015(1). Hearsay concerns whether an out-of-court statement may be admitted for its truth.”
Mishler v. McNally (1986) nev · cites it 2× “There is no apparent hearsay exception for this evidence; thus, it was inadmissible, NRS 51.”
Picozzi (Mark) v. State (2018) nev · cites it 3× “Picozzi argues that allowing the Google search testimony violated NRS 52.015, which requires evidence to be authenticated.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 52.015(1) — 24 cases
Rodriguez v. State (2012) nev “In particular, we conclude that text messages are *157 subject to the same authentication requirements under NRS 52.015(1) as other documents, including proof of authorship.”
BLIGE v. TERRY (2023) nev “” NRS 52.015(1). “The testimony of a witness is sufficient for authentication or identification if the witness has personal knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be.”
Archanian v. State (2006) nev “*1030 Additionally, Archanian contends that the district court violated NRS 52.015 because the composite videotape was not properly authenticated.”
Lamb v. State (2011) nev “235, and the voluminous writings recovered from Lamb’s apartment, car, and storage unit were adequately authenticated under NRS 52.015(1), NRS 52.055, at the preliminary hearing, and, ultimately, by Lamb on the witness stand.”
Lopez v. State (1989) nev “4 It is far from clear that NRAP 10(c) mandates the application of NRS 52.015 (authentication and identification) to attempts to reconstruct the trial record.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 52.015(2) — 7 cases
Lopez v. State (1989) nev “4 It is far from clear that NRAP 10(c) mandates the application of NRS 52.015 (authentication and identification) to attempts to reconstruct the trial record.”
BROWN (LARRY) v. STATE (2022) nev “070(1); NRS 52.015(1), and the jury would be asked to come to a conclusion that is beyond its ability, knowledge, and common sense.”
Sanders v. Sears-Page (2015) nev
SANDERS VS. SEARS-PAGE (2015) nev
SANDERS VS. SEARS-PAGE (2015) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 52.015(3) — 2 cases
Rodriguez v. State (2012) nev “In particular, we conclude that text messages are *157 subject to the same authentication requirements under NRS 52.015(1) as other documents, including proof of authorship.”
Cruz (Carim) v. State (2018) nev
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.