When a presumption is made conclusive by statute or no direct evidence is introduced contrary to the existence of the presumed fact, the question of the existence of the presumed fact depends upon the existence of the basic facts and is determined as follows: 1. If reasonable minds would necessarily agree that the evidence renders the existence of the basic facts more probable than not, the judge shall direct the jury to find in favor of the existence of the presumed fact. 2. If reasonable minds would necessarily agree that the evidence does not render the existence of the basic facts more probable than not, the judge shall direct the jury to find against the existence of the presumed fact. 3. If reasonable minds would not necessarily agree as to whether the evidence renders the existence of the basic facts more probable than not, the judge shall submit the matter to the jury with an instruction to find in favor of the existence of the presumed fact if they find from the evidence that the existence of the basic facts is more probable than not, but otherwise to find against the existence of the presumed fact.
‹ Prev All Nevada sections Next ›
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.