Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

NRS 48.035

Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion or waste of time

Applied in 189 court decisions — leading case State v. Eighth Judicial District Court ex rel. County of Clark (2011)

Most recently applied in 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 61 - TALLEY (OMAR) v. STATE (December 2025)

(Added to NRS by 1971, 780; A 1979, 37)

How often courts cite this section

1974198019902000201020202025110
citing decisions per year

Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.

1. Although relevant, evidence is not admissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues or of misleading the jury.

2. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

3. Evidence of another act or crime which is so closely related to an act in controversy or a crime charged that an ordinary witness cannot describe the act in controversy or the crime charged without referring to the other act or crime shall not be excluded, but at the request of an interested party, a cautionary instruction shall be given explaining the reason for its admission.

Official source: Nevada Legislature. Reproduced from public-domain Nevada statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.