NRS
193.050 Conduct constituting crime; prohibited or unlawful acts; common
law.
1. No conduct constitutes a crime unless
prohibited by some statute of this State or by some ordinance or like enactment
of a political subdivision of this State.
2. An act which is declared to be unlawful
by any statute, ordinance or like enactment is prohibited within the meaning of
this section and of NRS 193.151.
3. The provisions of the common law
relating to the definition of public offenses apply to any public offense which
is so prohibited but is not defined, or which is so prohibited but is
incompletely defined.
4. This section does not affect the power
of a court to punish for contempt or to employ any sanction authorized by law
for the enforcement of an order or a civil judgment or decree.
[1911 C&P § 35; RL § 6300; NCL § 9984]—(NRS A 1967,
458)
Notes of Decisions
State v. Castaneda (2010)
nev · cites it 6×
“220(1) properly applies to Castaneda and is not unconstitutionally vague. B. The challenged statute states: “A person who makes any open and indecent or obscene exposure of his or her person, or of the person of another, is guilty: (a) [f]or the first offense, of a gross…”
Lyons v. State (1989)
nev · cites it 2×
“See NRS 193.050. Because varying the pull of a slot machine handle has never been expressly proscribed by Nevada statute or ordinance or the common law of England, the status of handle popping as a public offense is entirely dependent upon its fair inclusion in the language of…”
Childs v. State (1991)
nev · cites it 2×
“It is clear however, that crime categories do not materialize or disappear on an ad hoc basis because of the presence or absence of scienter.”
Ibarra v. State (2018)
nev · cites it 2×
“See NRS 193.050 ("No conduct constitutes a crime unless prohibited by some statute of this state," but the "provisions of the common law relating to the definition of public offenses apply to any public offense which is so prohibited but is not defined, or which is so prohibited…”
Hogan v. State (1968)
nev
“The infamous crime against nature, either with man or beast, shall subject the offender to be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term not less than 1 year and which may be extended to life * * NRS 193.050 recites: “The provisions of the common law relating to the…”
Ranson v. State (1983)
nev
“As appellant correctly points out, when an offense has not been defined by the legislature, we normally look to the provisions of the common law relating to the definition of that offense.”
Donald v. State (1996)
nev
“337(1) provides in relevant part that “it is unlawful for any person to possess for the purpose of sale any controlled substance classified in schedule I or II.”
Lucas v. Sheriff (1979)
nev
“” 1967 Nev. Stats, ch. 211, § 1, at 458. Accordingly, Counts VI, XII and XIII of the indictment may not stand and the writ as to them must be granted; however, without prejudice to the State to refile new charges against the appellant predicated upon an appropriate statute.”
IBARRA (GABRIEL) VS. STATE (2018)
nev · cites it 4×
“See NRS 193.050 ("No conduct constitutes a crime unless prohibited by SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A cde 4 MSK A 7E117 some statute of this state," but the "provisions of the common law relating to the definition of public offenses apply to any public offense which is so…”
IBARRA (GABRIEL) VS. STATE (2018)
nev · cites it 4×
“See NRS 193.050 ("No conduct constitutes a crime unless prohibited by SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A cde 4 MSK A 7E117 some statute of this state," but the "provisions of the common law relating to the definition of public offenses apply to any public offense which is so…”
Willson v. First Jud. Dist. Ct. (2024)
nevapp
“2d 549, 550 (1976); see also NRS 193.050(8). Finally, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.”
Willson v. First Jud. Dist. Ct. (2024)
nevapp
“2d 549, 550 (1976); see also NRS 193.050(3). Finally, "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.050(1) — 4 cases
Donald v. State (1996)
nev
“337(1) provides in relevant part that “it is unlawful for any person to possess for the purpose of sale any controlled substance classified in schedule I or II.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.050(3) — 7 cases
State v. Castaneda (2010)
nev
“220(1) properly applies to Castaneda and is not unconstitutionally vague. B. The challenged statute states: “A person who makes any open and indecent or obscene exposure of his or her person, or of the person of another, is guilty: (a) [f]or the first offense, of a gross…”
Ibarra v. State (2018)
nev
“See NRS 193.050 ("No conduct constitutes a crime unless prohibited by some statute of this state," but the "provisions of the common law relating to the definition of public offenses apply to any public offense which is so prohibited but is not defined, or which is so prohibited…”
Ranson v. State (1983)
nev
“As appellant correctly points out, when an offense has not been defined by the legislature, we normally look to the provisions of the common law relating to the definition of that offense.”
IBARRA (GABRIEL) VS. STATE (2018)
nev
“See NRS 193.050 ("No conduct constitutes a crime unless prohibited by SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A cde 4 MSK A 7E117 some statute of this state," but the "provisions of the common law relating to the definition of public offenses apply to any public offense which is so…”
IBARRA (GABRIEL) VS. STATE (2018)
nev
“See NRS 193.050 ("No conduct constitutes a crime unless prohibited by SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A cde 4 MSK A 7E117 some statute of this state," but the "provisions of the common law relating to the definition of public offenses apply to any public offense which is so…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.050(8) — 1 case
Willson v. First Jud. Dist. Ct. (2024)
nevapp
“2d 549, 550 (1976); see also NRS 193.050(8). Finally, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.”
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.