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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 52.235 (2026)

Original required

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 52.235  Original required.  To prove the content of a writing, recording or photograph, the original writing, recording or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in this title.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 800)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1972–2020 · leading case: Stephans v. State, 262 P.3d 727 (Nev. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stephans v. State, 262 P.3d 727 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 2× “” Under NRS 52.235, “[t]o prove the content of a writing .”
Carter v. State, 121 P.3d 592 (Nev. 2005). “24 See NRS 52.235 (providing that “[t]o prove the content of a writing, recording or photograph, the original writing, recording or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in this title”).”
Archanian v. State, 145 P.3d 1008 (Nev. 2006). “He argues that the composite videotape violated NRS 52.235, also known as the best evidence rule, which provides that “[t]o prove the content of a writing, recording or photograph, the original writing, recording or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in this…”
Young v. Nevada Title Co., 744 P.2d 902 (Nev. 1987). · cites it 2× “Young and Ellis objected to this evidence on the basis of the best evidence rule (NRS 52.235) claiming that the correspondence did not prove that AIM had in fact advanced monies on behalf of the trustees.”
One 1970 Chevrolet Motor Veh. v. Cnty. of Nye, 518 P.2d 38 (Nev. 1974). · cites it 2× “NRS 52.235. The testimony of the officers that they obtained a search warrant, exhibited it to Dittmer, gave him a copy, and conducted a search does not amount to testimony proving what was in the warrant.”
Lagrange Constr., Inc. v. KENT Corp., 496 P.2d 766 (Nev. 1972). “As stated by McCormick, “The rule is this: in proving the terms of a writing, where such terms are material, the original writing must be produced, unless it is shown to be unavailable for some reason other than the serious fault of the proponent.”
Sheriff v. Crockett, 724 P.2d 203 (Nev. 1986). “Specifically, respondent argued that there were discrepancies in the evidence regarding the terms and amount of the original loan, that the state had failed to introduce the original loan document as required by NRS 52.”
Yandell (Timothy) Vs. State (Nev. 2020). “See NRS 52.235; NRS 52.285 (putting certain limitations on witness testimony where there was a "nonproduction" of the original).”
Tomlinson v. State, 878 P.2d 311 (Nev. 1994). · cites it 2× “See NRS 52.235. In essence, NRS 52.235 requires that the party trying to prove the contents of a written document, a recording, or a photograph produce the original.”
Kincade (Michael) v. State (Nev. 2014). “Generally, to prove the contents of a photograph, the original photograph is required. NRS 52.235. However, "[i]f data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown accurately to reflect the data, is an 'original.”
Owens (Jason) v. State (Nev. 2015). “Initially, we note that Owens offers no cogent argument in support of his claim that Detective Carter's testimony during the playing of the surveillance videotape violated NRS 52.235. The videotape, depicting six different views of the crime scene, was admitted and played for…”
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.