Skip to main content

Woods v. State

Citations

  • 696 P.2d 464
  • 101 Nev. 128
  • 1985 Nev. LEXIS 378

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • explaining that the drafters of the federal rule analogous to NRS 51.345 expressed concern about fabrication
  • same; exclusion of such evidence “clearly prejudicial” because, without it, defendant unable to properly present her version of the events
  • same; exclusion of such evidence \clearly prejudicial\ because, without it, defendant unable to properly present her version of the events
  • “In determining whether the declarant in fact made the proffered statement, the trial court may consider the credibility of the [in-court] witness.”
  • same; exclusion of such evidence “clearly prejudicial” because, without it, defendant unable to properly present her version of the events

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gunderson, Springer, Mowbray, Steffen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.