NRS
176A.110 Persons convicted of certain offenses required to be certified
as not representing high risk to reoffend before court suspends sentence or
grants probation; immunity.
1. The court shall not grant probation to
or suspend the sentence of a person convicted of an offense listed in
subsection 3 unless:
(a) If a psychosexual evaluation of the person is
required pursuant to NRS 176.139, the
person who conducts the psychosexual evaluation certifies in the report
prepared pursuant to NRS 176.139 that
the person convicted of the offense does not represent a high risk to reoffend
based upon a currently accepted standard of assessment; or
(b) If a psychosexual evaluation of the person is
not required pursuant to NRS 176.139, a
psychologist licensed to practice in this State who is trained to conduct
psychosexual evaluations or a psychiatrist licensed to practice medicine in
this State who is certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology,
Inc., and is trained to conduct psychosexual evaluations certifies in a written
report to the court that the person convicted of the offense does not represent
a high risk to reoffend based upon a currently accepted standard of assessment.
2. This section does not create a right in
any person to be certified or to continue to be certified. No person may bring
a cause of action against the State, its political subdivisions, or the
agencies, boards, commissions, departments, officers or employees of the State
or its political subdivisions for not certifying a person pursuant to this
section or for refusing to consider a person for certification pursuant to this
section.
3. The provisions of this section apply to
a person convicted of any of the following offenses:
(a) Attempted sexual assault of a person who is
16 years of age or older pursuant to NRS
200.366.
(b) Statutory sexual seduction pursuant to NRS 200.368.
(c) Battery with intent to commit sexual assault
pursuant to NRS 200.400.
(d) Abuse or neglect of a child pursuant to NRS 200.508.
(e) An offense involving child sexual abuse
material pursuant to NRS 200.710 to 200.730, inclusive.
(f) Fertility fraud pursuant to paragraph (a) of
subsection 1 of NRS 200.975.
(g) Incest pursuant to NRS 201.180.
(h) Open or gross lewdness pursuant to NRS 201.210.
(i) Indecent or obscene exposure pursuant to NRS 201.220.
(j) Soliciting a child for prostitution pursuant
to NRS 201.354.
(k) Sexual penetration of a dead human body
pursuant to NRS 201.450.
(l) Sexual conduct between certain employees of a
school or volunteers at a school and a pupil pursuant to NRS 201.540.
(m) Sexual conduct between certain employees of a
college or university and a student pursuant to NRS 201.550.
(n) Luring a child or a person with mental
illness pursuant to NRS 201.560, if
punished as a felony.
(o) A violation of NRS 207.180.
(p) An attempt to commit an offense listed in
paragraphs (b) to (o), inclusive.
(q) Coercion or attempted coercion that is
determined to be sexually motivated pursuant to NRS 207.193.
(Added to NRS by 1997,
2504; A 2001,
1638, 2792;
2003,
67, 1382,
2828;
2013,
1162; 2015,
1439; 2023,
1419, 1822;
2025,
769)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2021 · leading case:
Dzul v. State, 56 P.3d 875 (Nev. 2002).
Dzul v. State, 56 P.3d 875 (Nev. 2002).
· cites it 10× “Dzul points out that NRS 176A.110 conditions the grant of probation on a favorable psychosexual evaluation and asserts that a favorable psychosexual evaluation virtually always requires an admission of guilt by the defendant.”
Austin v. State, 151 P.3d 60 (Nev. 2007).
· cites it 27× “: In this appeal, we consider the qualifications required by NRS 176A.110 for the professional that conducts a psychosexual evaluation and renders the certification needed for probation of a defendant who is found guilty of felony statutory sexual seduction.”
Blackburn v. State of Nevada, 294 P.3d 422 (Nev. 2013).
· cites it 9× “Because NRS 176A.110 and NRS 176.139 call for the use of clinical judgment in tandem with diagnostic tools, we affirm.”
State v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of Nev., 432 P.3d 154 (Nev. 2018).
“*165 This is no different than conditions the Legislature has placed on the district court's discretion to suspend a sentence and place a defendant on probation.”
Olive (Vallaneice) Vs. State (Nev. 2021).
· cites it 8× “At the sentencing hearing, the district court ordered Olive to undergo a psychosexual evaluation pursuant to NRS 176A.110(3)(d), even though Olive's crime did not have a sexual component.”
Smith (Thomas) v. State (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 6× “Smith did not challenge his PSE, the qualifications of his evaluator, or the constitutionality of NRS 176A.110 in district court. See Fast Track Statement, p.”
Williams (Patrick) v. State (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Additionally, "NRS 176A.110 and NRS 176.139 do not mandate reliance on actuarial tools alone, and a clinician may rely on his or her professional opinion in conducting a psychosexual evaluation.”
Coleman (Krystal) Vs. State (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 2× “1NRS 176A.110(1)(b) requires a sentence of imprisonment, without suspension, unless Coleman did "not represent a high risk to reoffend.”
Doraji (Amir) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2021).
· cites it 2× “139 nor NRS 176A.110 require the district court to substitute the report prepared for the Division with a report prepared by a defense expert.”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (hearn (matthew)), 2018 NV 96 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 2× “NRS 176A.110(1). Without this certification, a district court has no discretion to place a defendant on probation.”
Fisher v. Baker (D. Nev. 2019).
· cites it 2× “14 Second, Petitioner argues that Westbrook pursued the wrong procedural vehicle 15 for his primary argument—that NRS §§ 176A.110 and 176.139 are unconstitutional as 16 they improperly delegate judicial power and violate separation of powers.”
Harlow (Paul) v. State (Nev. 2016).
“100(1)(a) (listing crimes SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A for which probation is not permissible); NRS 176A.110(1) (explaining that the court shall not grant probation to a person convicted of attempted sexual assault unless he does not represent a high risk to reoffend as…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176A.110(1) — 5 cases
State v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of Nev., 432 P.3d 154 (Nev. 2018).
“*165 This is no different than conditions the Legislature has placed on the district court's discretion to suspend a sentence and place a defendant on probation.”
Austin v. State, 151 P.3d 60 (Nev. 2007).
“: In this appeal, we consider the qualifications required by NRS 176A.110 for the professional that conducts a psychosexual evaluation and renders the certification needed for probation of a defendant who is found guilty of felony statutory sexual seduction.”
Harlow (Paul) v. State (Nev. 2016).
“100(1)(a) (listing crimes SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A for which probation is not permissible); NRS 176A.110(1) (explaining that the court shall not grant probation to a person convicted of attempted sexual assault unless he does not represent a high risk to reoffend as…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176A.110(1)(a) — 4 cases
Austin v. State, 151 P.3d 60 (Nev. 2007).
“: In this appeal, we consider the qualifications required by NRS 176A.110 for the professional that conducts a psychosexual evaluation and renders the certification needed for probation of a defendant who is found guilty of felony statutory sexual seduction.”
Williams (Patrick) v. State (Nev. 2017).
“Additionally, "NRS 176A.110 and NRS 176.139 do not mandate reliance on actuarial tools alone, and a clinician may rely on his or her professional opinion in conducting a psychosexual evaluation.”
Smith (Thomas) v. State (Nev. 2015).
“Smith did not challenge his PSE, the qualifications of his evaluator, or the constitutionality of NRS 176A.110 in district court. See Fast Track Statement, p.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176A.110(1)(b) — 3 cases
Austin v. State, 151 P.3d 60 (Nev. 2007).
“: In this appeal, we consider the qualifications required by NRS 176A.110 for the professional that conducts a psychosexual evaluation and renders the certification needed for probation of a defendant who is found guilty of felony statutory sexual seduction.”
Coleman (Krystal) Vs. State (Nev. 2019).
“1NRS 176A.110(1)(b) requires a sentence of imprisonment, without suspension, unless Coleman did "not represent a high risk to reoffend.”
Smith (Thomas) v. State (Nev. 2015).
“Smith did not challenge his PSE, the qualifications of his evaluator, or the constitutionality of NRS 176A.110 in district court. See Fast Track Statement, p.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176A.110(3) — 1 case
Austin v. State, 151 P.3d 60 (Nev. 2007).
“: In this appeal, we consider the qualifications required by NRS 176A.110 for the professional that conducts a psychosexual evaluation and renders the certification needed for probation of a defendant who is found guilty of felony statutory sexual seduction.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176A.110(3)(b) — 1 case
Austin v. State, 151 P.3d 60 (Nev. 2007).
“: In this appeal, we consider the qualifications required by NRS 176A.110 for the professional that conducts a psychosexual evaluation and renders the certification needed for probation of a defendant who is found guilty of felony statutory sexual seduction.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176A.110(3)(d) — 2 cases
Olive (Vallaneice) Vs. State (Nev. 2021).
“At the sentencing hearing, the district court ordered Olive to undergo a psychosexual evaluation pursuant to NRS 176A.110(3)(d), even though Olive's crime did not have a sexual component.”
Coleman (Krystal) Vs. State (Nev. 2019).
“1NRS 176A.110(1)(b) requires a sentence of imprisonment, without suspension, unless Coleman did "not represent a high risk to reoffend.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176A.110(l)(a) — 1 case
Blackburn v. State of Nevada, 294 P.3d 422 (Nev. 2013).
“Because NRS 176A.110 and NRS 176.139 call for the use of clinical judgment in tandem with diagnostic tools, we affirm.”
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.