Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 173 - INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 173.085 (2026)

Surplusage

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 173.085  Surplusage.  The court on motion of the defendant may strike surplusage from the indictment or information.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1413)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1971–2018 · leading case: State v. Benigas, 594 P.2d 724 (Nev. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Benigas, 594 P.2d 724 (Nev. 1979). · cites it 3× “*360 Appellant contends the allegation that respondents acted “with the intent to steal and defraud the owner” of his property is neither misleading, nor prejudicial, and may be stricken as surplusage.”
Carson v. Sheriff, Clark Cnty., 487 P.2d 334 (Nev. 1971). “If appellant deems such surplusage prejudicial, he may move to have it stricken under NRS 173.085. 2. In regard to his first contention, appellant also has raised questions concerning the extent to which knowledge of injury is a requisite element of offenses under NRS 484.”
Luckett v. Warden, Nevada State Prison, 539 P.2d 1219 (Nev. 1975). “Lawry, 4 Nev. 161 (1868); Nevada v. Pierce, 8 Nev. 291 (1873).”
Rimer (stanley) Vs. State, 2015 NV 36 (Nev. 2015). · cites it 2× “2d 557, 559 (2000), and, further, that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that the term "baby" was not surplusage, see NRS 173.085. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 20 (0) 1947A e49, C.”
Zanini (Frank) v. State (Nev. 2018). “Zanini argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to strike the superfluous counts pursuant to NRS 173.085 before the case was submitted to the jury.”
Pimentel (Luis) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2014). “075(1); NRS 173.085; Simpson v. Eighth Judicial Dist.”
Rimer (stanley) Vs. State, 2015 NV 36 (Nev. 2015). “2d 557, 559 (2000), and, further, that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that the term "baby" was not surplusage, see NRS 173.085. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 20 (0) 1947A e49, C.”
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.