NRS
62D.420 Admissible evidence; examination and cross-examination; court
access to and use of records relating to custody of child or involvement of
child with agency which provides child welfare services.
1. In each proceeding conducted pursuant
to the provisions of this title, the juvenile court may:
(a) Receive all competent, material and relevant
evidence that may be helpful in determining the issues presented, including,
but not limited to, oral and written reports; and
(b) Rely on such evidence to the extent of its
probative value.
2. The juvenile court shall afford the
parties and their attorneys an opportunity to examine and controvert each
written report that is received into evidence and to cross-examine each person
who made the written report, when reasonably available.
3. In any proceeding involving a child for
which the court has access to records relating to the custody of the child or
the involvement of the child with an agency which provides child welfare
services, the juvenile court may review those records to assist the court in
determining the appropriate placement or plan of treatment for the child.
4. Except when a record described in
subsection 3 would otherwise be admissible as evidence in the proceeding, the
juvenile court shall not use a record reviewed pursuant to subsection 3 to
prove that the child committed a delinquent act or is in need of supervision or
for any purpose other than a purpose set forth in subsection 3. Except as
otherwise provided in subsection 5, such records must not be disclosed or
otherwise made open to inspection unless the records are admitted as evidence
and used to determine the disposition of the case.
5. The juvenile court shall afford the
parties and their attorneys an opportunity to examine and address any record
reviewed by the juvenile court pursuant to subsection 3.
(Added to NRS by 2003,
1059; A 2011,
1000; 2017,
747)
Notes of Decisions
In Re: N.j., a Minor Child, 2018 NV 48 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 20× “We SUPREME COURT conclude that it did not because the evidence was competent, material, and Of NEVADA (0) 1947A relevant to appellant's underlying charges, as required pursuant to juvenile justice statute NRS 62D.420. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 22, 2015, appellant…”
N.J. v. State (In re N.J.), 420 P.3d 1029 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 11× “We conclude that it did not because the evidence was competent, material, and relevant to appellant's underlying charges, as required pursuant to juvenile justice statute NRS 62D.420. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 22, 2015, appellant N.”
In Re: N.j., a Minor Child, 2018 NV 48 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 10× “We SUPREME COURT conclude that it did not because the evidence was competent, material, and Of NEVADA (0) 1947A relevant to appellant's underlying charges, as required pursuant to juvenile justice statute NRS 62D.420. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 22, 2015, appellant…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 62D.420(1)(a) — 3 cases
In Re: N.j., a Minor Child, 2018 NV 48 (Nev. 2018).
“We SUPREME COURT conclude that it did not because the evidence was competent, material, and Of NEVADA (0) 1947A relevant to appellant's underlying charges, as required pursuant to juvenile justice statute NRS 62D.420. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 22, 2015, appellant…”
In Re: N.j., a Minor Child, 2018 NV 48 (Nev. 2018).
“We SUPREME COURT conclude that it did not because the evidence was competent, material, and Of NEVADA (0) 1947A relevant to appellant's underlying charges, as required pursuant to juvenile justice statute NRS 62D.420. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 22, 2015, appellant…”
N.J. v. State (In re N.J.), 420 P.3d 1029 (Nev. 2018).
“We conclude that it did not because the evidence was competent, material, and relevant to appellant's underlying charges, as required pursuant to juvenile justice statute NRS 62D.420. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 22, 2015, appellant N.”
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.