(a) In Open Court. At trial, the witnesses’ testimony must be taken in open court unless provided otherwise by applicable law. For good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, the court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location.
Rule 43.Taking testimony
Group VI: Trials · Last amended March 1, 2019 · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 43 requires trial testimony to be given in open court, allows remote testimony for good cause, permits an affirmation in place of an oath, lets courts consider affidavits or other evidence on motions, and authorizes the appointment of interpreters.
Full Text of Rule 43
(b) Affirmation Instead of an Oath. When these rules require an oath, a solemn affirmation suffices.
(c) Evidence on a Motion. When a motion relies on facts outside the record, the court may hear the matter on affidavits or may hear it wholly or partly on oral testimony or on depositions.
(d) Interpreter. The court may appoint an interpreter of its choosing; fix reasonable compensation to be paid from funds provided by law or by one or more parties; and tax the compensation as costs.
Notes
Drafter’s Note, Amendment Effective January 1, 2005: Subdivision (a) is amended to conform to the 1996 amendments to the federal rule by deleting the requirement that testimony be taken “orally” and adding the second sentence, which permits the “presentation of testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location” upon a showing of “good cause” in “compelling circumstances.” Subdivisions (b) and (c), which were deleted from the federal rule in 1972 because the matters were treated in the Federal Rules of Evidence, are retained in the Nevada rule. The amendment to subdivision (d) is technical.
Advisory Committee Note — 2019 Amendment: The amendments generally conform Rule 43 to the federal rule. Rule 43(d) should work in harmony with NRS Chapters 1 and 50 and any other state law governing interpreters.
Amendment History
Added eff. 9-27-71; Amended 12-13-85, eff. 2-11-86; Amended eff. 1-1-05; Amended eff. 3-1-19.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 43 sets the default for how witnesses testify at trial: in open court, in person. That default can give way when good cause exists under compelling circumstances, and the court can allow testimony to come in by contemporaneous transmission from somewhere else, with whatever safeguards the situation calls for. The rule also confirms that anyone required to take an oath under these rules can instead make a solemn affirmation, which carries the same legal weight without invoking a deity.
Outside of trial testimony, the rule addresses how a court can handle facts that come up on a motion. When a motion depends on facts outside the existing record, the judge is not limited to written affidavits — the court can hear oral testimony, review depositions, or use some combination of methods. Finally, the rule lets the court appoint an interpreter of its own choosing, set reasonable compensation drawn from public funds or from the parties, and tax that expense as part of the costs of the case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does trial testimony have to happen in person?
As a rule, yes — testimony must be given in open court. The court can permit testimony by contemporaneous transmission from another location, but only for good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards.
Can a witness affirm instead of swearing an oath?
Yes. Wherever these rules call for an oath, a solemn affirmation is an accepted substitute and has the same legal effect.
If a motion depends on facts not already in the record, how does the court find out what happened?
The court has flexibility. It can rely on affidavits, hear oral testimony, review depositions, or use a combination, wholly or in part, to resolve the disputed facts.
Who pays for a court-appointed interpreter?
The court sets reasonable compensation, which can come from funds provided by law or from one or more of the parties, and the amount can be taxed as part of the costs of the case.
Can the court pick which interpreter to appoint?
Yes. Rule 43 gives the court discretion to appoint an interpreter of its own choosing.
Source & verification. Rule text, official Advisory Committee
Notes, and amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Nevada Rules of Civil
Procedure, adopted by the Supreme Court of Nevada. Last verified July 14, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: testimony by video Nevadaremote witness testimonyaffirmation instead of oathcourt interpreter ruleevidence on a motion