When reasonable minds would not necessarily agree as to whether the evidence renders the existence of the basic facts more probable than not, and direct evidence is introduced concerning the existence of the presumed fact, the question of the existence of the presumed fact is determined as follows: 1. If reasonable minds would necessarily agree that the direct evidence renders the existence of the presumed fact 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 direct evidence renders the nonexistence of the presumed fact 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 that the direct evidence renders the nonexistence of the presumed fact 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 and unless they find the nonexistence of the presumed fact more probable than not, 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.