Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: PRELIMINARY CHAPTER

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 0.060

“Substantial bodily harm” defined

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 0.060  “Substantial bodily harm” defined.  Unless the context otherwise requires, “substantial bodily harm” means:

      1.  Bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ; or

      2.  Prolonged physical pain.

      (Added to NRS by 1985, 221)

PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE UNDER CERTAIN INTERSTATE COMPACTS

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2022 · leading case: Collins v. State
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Collins v. State (2009) nev · cites it 14× “1 Problematically, in making this argument, Collins ignores the fact that NRS 0.060 provides two alternate definitions of the term *64 “substantial bodily harm.”
United States v. Davion Fitzgerald (2019) ca9 · cites it 3× “” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 0.060 . The government does not argue that the statute is divisible, and Fitzgerald does not contest that a conviction under the first definition would necessarily require the use of violent force.”
State v. Latham (2014) washctapp · cites it 2× “¶10 Nevada defined “substantial bodily harm” at Nev. Rev. Stat. § 0.060 : 1. Bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ; or 2.”
Hardaway v. State (1996) nev · cites it 7× “Appellant contends that such an instruction is a plain reading of NRS 0.060, which reads: “Substantial bodily harm” defined.”
Rice v. State (1997) nev · cites it 2× “The statutory definition of substantial bodily harm set forth in NRS 0.060 states that it is bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement or prolonged physical pain.”
Robins v. State (1990) nev “” See NRS 0.060. 4 The jury instructions at issue read as follows: Instruction No.”
State of West Virginia v. Summer McDaniel (2016) wva “” NRS 0.060(l)-(2). In contrast, felony murder by child neglect does not require any of those elements, but instead requires that the underlying felony be "inherently dangerous” and that there be "an immediate and causal relationship between the felonious conduct .”
Skiba v. State (1998) nev · cites it 2× “[2] NRS 0.060 defines "substantial bodily harm" as: 1.”
Salazar v. State (2003) nev “Accordingly, we affirm Salazar’s convictions for battery with a deadly weapon and for mayhem with use of a deadly weapon. We reverse the conviction for battery with use of a deadly weapon with substantial bodily harm and remand to the district court to amend the judgment of…”
LaChance v. Wickham (2021) nvd · cites it 3× “10 According to NRS § 0.060, “[u]nless the context otherwise requires,” “substantial 11 bodily harm” means: 12 (1) Bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement or protracted 13 loss or impairment of the function of any…”
Geddings (Cody) v. State (2016) nev · cites it 2× “" NRS 0.060(1). Thus, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Camacho (Mario) v. State (2019) nev · cites it 2× “evidence supported Camacho's conviction for kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm Camacho contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the substantial bodily harm enhancement based on the shooting of Wiest during his kidnapping…”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 0.060(1) — 4 cases
Collins v. State (2009) nev “1 Problematically, in making this argument, Collins ignores the fact that NRS 0.060 provides two alternate definitions of the term *64 “substantial bodily harm.”
Geddings (Cody) v. State (2016) nev “" NRS 0.060(1). Thus, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Camacho (Mario) v. State (2019) nev “evidence supported Camacho's conviction for kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm Camacho contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the substantial bodily harm enhancement based on the shooting of Wiest during his kidnapping…”
Camacho (Mario) v. State (2019) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 0.060(2) — 1 case
Collins v. State (2009) nev “1 Problematically, in making this argument, Collins ignores the fact that NRS 0.060 provides two alternate definitions of the term *64 “substantial bodily harm.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 0.060(l) — 1 case
State of West Virginia v. Summer McDaniel (2016) wva “” NRS 0.060(l)-(2). In contrast, felony murder by child neglect does not require any of those elements, but instead requires that the underlying felony be "inherently dangerous” and that there be "an immediate and causal relationship between the felonious conduct .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.