Opinion ID: 2632741
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Comparable California sales

Text: The Cowans maintain that the district court abused its discretion, resulting in substantial prejudice to their case, when it excluded evidence of comparable California sales and appraisals. The Cowans assert that this evidence should have been admitted because comparable properties could not be found in the Clark County area. In Nevada, the district court has discretion to exclude evidence pursuant to NRS 48.035(1). [19] This court has noted, NRS 48.035 allows the district court to exclude evidence if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or undue delay. Even if evidence is otherwise admissible, a trial court may exclude the evidence after striking a proper balance between the probative value of the evidence and its prejudicial dangers. A district court's decision whether to exclude or admit evidence will only be reversed if it is manifestly wrong. [20] Here, the district court excluded evidence of California property sales and appraisals because it was not probative of the real property situation in Nevada and it would be highly confusing and misleading to this jury. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence.