NRS
193.165 Use of deadly weapon or tear gas in commission of crime;
restriction on probation and suspension of sentence.
1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 193.169, any person who uses a firearm
or other deadly weapon or a weapon containing or capable of emitting tear gas,
whether or not its possession is permitted by NRS
202.375, in the commission of a crime shall, in addition to the term of
imprisonment prescribed by statute for the crime, be punished by imprisonment
in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum
term of not more than 20 years. In determining the length of the additional penalty
imposed, the court shall consider the following information:
(a) The facts and circumstances of the crime;
(b) The criminal history of the person;
(c) The impact of the crime on any victim;
(d) Any mitigating factors presented by the
person; and
(e) Any other relevant information.
Ê The court
shall state on the record that it has considered the information described in
paragraphs (a) to (e), inclusive, in determining the length of the additional
penalty imposed.
2. The sentence prescribed by this
section:
(a) Must not exceed the sentence imposed for the
crime; and
(b) Runs consecutively with the sentence
prescribed by statute for the crime.
3. This section does not create any
separate offense but provides an additional penalty for the primary offense,
whose imposition is contingent upon the finding of the prescribed fact.
4. The provisions of subsections 1, 2 and
3 do not apply where the use of a firearm, other deadly weapon or tear gas is a
necessary element of such crime.
5. The court shall not grant probation to
or suspend the sentence of any person who is convicted of using a firearm,
other deadly weapon or tear gas in the commission of any of the following
crimes:
(a) Murder;
(b) Kidnapping in the first degree;
(c) Sexual assault; or
(d) Robbery.
6. As used in this section, “deadly
weapon” means:
(a) Any instrument which, if used in the ordinary
manner contemplated by its design and construction, will or is likely to cause
substantial bodily harm or death;
(b) Any weapon, device, instrument, material or
substance which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be
used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing substantial bodily
harm or death; or
(c) A dangerous or deadly weapon specifically
described in NRS 202.255, 202.265, 202.290,
202.320 or 202.350.
(Added to NRS by 1973,
1593; A 1975,
720; 1979,
225; 1981,
2050; 1991,
1059; 1995,
1431; 2007,
3188)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
308
cases (
39 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case:
Mendoza-Lobos v. State, 218 P.3d 501 (Nev. 2009).
Mendoza-Lobos v. State, 218 P.3d 501 (Nev. 2009).
· cites it 74× “Before pronouncing sentence, the State reminded the district court that, pursuant to NRS 193.165, it was required to make "finding[s] on the record" regarding the sentences imposed for deadly weapon enhancements.”
Berry v. State, 212 P.3d 1085 (Nev. 2009).
· cites it 44× “Definitions of “firearm” NRS 193.165 provides an additional penalty for offenders who use a deadly weapon during the commission of a crime.”
Funderburk v. State, 212 P.3d 337 (Nev. 2009).
· cites it 25× “165(6)’s definitions to his burglary charges contradicts the Legislature’s intent because burglary, unlike other crimes such as robbery or murder, is not referenced in NRS 193.165, and the burglary statute instead has its own provision in NRS 205.”
State v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct.(pullin), 188 P.3d 1079 (Nev. 2008).
· cites it 14× “OPINION Per Curiam: In this original petition for a writ of mandamus, we decide whether ameliorative amendments to the deadly weapon enhancement statute (NRS 193.165) apply to offenders who committed their crimes prior to the effective date of the amendments but were sentenced…”
Guerrina v. State, 419 P.3d 705 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 15× “"A knife is not necessarily a deadly weapon under NRS 193.165." Domingues v. State, 112 Nev.”
Hernandez v. State, 50 P.3d 1100 (Nev. 2002).
· cites it 6× “26 In Zgombic, this court considered whether the Legislature intended a broad, functional definition of “deadly weapon” under a former version of NRS 193.165, which did not define the term.”
Odoms v. State, 714 P.2d 568 (Nev. 1986).
· cites it 19× “We conclude that the district court erred when, pursuant to NRS 193.165, it sentenced Odoms to a sepa *29 rate life sentence for Odoms’ use of a deadly weapon.”
Clem v. State, 81 P.3d 521 (Nev. 2003).
· cites it 9× “[4] The sentences for the crimes were enhanced, consistent with NRS 193.165, for appellants' use of deadly weapons, i.”
Nevada Dep't of Prisons v. Bowen, 745 P.2d 697 (Nev. 1987).
· cites it 15× “380; NRS 193.165. The State Board Parole Commissioners (“parole board”) treated respondent’s sentences as two separate seven-year terms.”
Carter v. State, 647 P.2d 374 (Nev. 1982).
· cites it 13× “The district court judge sentenced appellant pursuant to NRS 193.165 and NRS 193.167. Appellant received twenty years for the sexual assault, plus an enhancement of twenty years for use of a deadly weapon, and an additional twenty years because his victim was over sixty-five…”
Moore v. State, 27 P.3d 447 (Nev. 2001).
· cites it 7× “OPINION Per Curiam: To resolve this appeal, we must decide whether a sentence for the crime of conspiracy may be enhanced under NRS 193.165(1), the deadly weapon enhancement.”
Buff v. State, 970 P.2d 564 (Nev. 1998).
· cites it 14× “The deadly weapon enhancement Appellants contend that the deadly weapon sentence enhancement must be vacated because the district court erroneously concluded that a Swiss army knife is a deadly weapon under NRS 193.165 [2] and erroneously instructed the jury on the deadly weapon…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.165(1) — 78 cases
Mendoza-Lobos v. State, 218 P.3d 501 (Nev. 2009).
“Before pronouncing sentence, the State reminded the district court that, pursuant to NRS 193.165, it was required to make "finding[s] on the record" regarding the sentences imposed for deadly weapon enhancements.”
Moore v. State, 27 P.3d 447 (Nev. 2001).
“OPINION Per Curiam: To resolve this appeal, we must decide whether a sentence for the crime of conspiracy may be enhanced under NRS 193.165(1), the deadly weapon enhancement.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.165(1)(a) — 6 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.165(2) — 9 cases
Odoms v. State, 714 P.2d 568 (Nev. 1986).
“We conclude that the district court erred when, pursuant to NRS 193.165, it sentenced Odoms to a sepa *29 rate life sentence for Odoms’ use of a deadly weapon.”
Nevada Dep't of Prisons v. Bowen, 745 P.2d 697 (Nev. 1987).
“380; NRS 193.165. The State Board Parole Commissioners (“parole board”) treated respondent’s sentences as two separate seven-year terms.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.165(3) — 12 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.165(4) — 5 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.165(5) — 2 cases
Hernandez v. State, 50 P.3d 1100 (Nev. 2002).
“26 In Zgombic, this court considered whether the Legislature intended a broad, functional definition of “deadly weapon” under a former version of NRS 193.165, which did not define the term.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.165(5)(a) — 2 cases
Hernandez v. State, 50 P.3d 1100 (Nev. 2002).
“26 In Zgombic, this court considered whether the Legislature intended a broad, functional definition of “deadly weapon” under a former version of NRS 193.165, which did not define the term.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.165(5)(b) — 3 cases
Hernandez v. State, 50 P.3d 1100 (Nev. 2002).
“26 In Zgombic, this court considered whether the Legislature intended a broad, functional definition of “deadly weapon” under a former version of NRS 193.165, which did not define the term.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.165(5)(c) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.165(6) — 16 cases
Berry v. State, 212 P.3d 1085 (Nev. 2009).
“Definitions of “firearm” NRS 193.165 provides an additional penalty for offenders who use a deadly weapon during the commission of a crime.”
Funderburk v. State, 212 P.3d 337 (Nev. 2009).
“165(6)’s definitions to his burglary charges contradicts the Legislature’s intent because burglary, unlike other crimes such as robbery or murder, is not referenced in NRS 193.165, and the burglary statute instead has its own provision in NRS 205.”
Guerrina v. State, 419 P.3d 705 (Nev. 2018).
“"A knife is not necessarily a deadly weapon under NRS 193.165." Domingues v. State, 112 Nev.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.165(6)(a) — 4 cases
Berry v. State, 212 P.3d 1085 (Nev. 2009).
“Definitions of “firearm” NRS 193.165 provides an additional penalty for offenders who use a deadly weapon during the commission of a crime.”
Guerrina v. State, 419 P.3d 705 (Nev. 2018).
“"A knife is not necessarily a deadly weapon under NRS 193.165." Domingues v. State, 112 Nev.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.165(6)(b) — 15 cases
Berry v. State, 212 P.3d 1085 (Nev. 2009).
“Definitions of “firearm” NRS 193.165 provides an additional penalty for offenders who use a deadly weapon during the commission of a crime.”
Guerrina v. State, 419 P.3d 705 (Nev. 2018).
“"A knife is not necessarily a deadly weapon under NRS 193.165." Domingues v. State, 112 Nev.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.165(6)(c) — 10 cases
Berry v. State, 212 P.3d 1085 (Nev. 2009).
“Definitions of “firearm” NRS 193.165 provides an additional penalty for offenders who use a deadly weapon during the commission of a crime.”
Funderburk v. State, 212 P.3d 337 (Nev. 2009).
“165(6)’s definitions to his burglary charges contradicts the Legislature’s intent because burglary, unlike other crimes such as robbery or murder, is not referenced in NRS 193.165, and the burglary statute instead has its own provision in NRS 205.”
Guerrina v. State, 419 P.3d 705 (Nev. 2018).
“"A knife is not necessarily a deadly weapon under NRS 193.165." Domingues v. State, 112 Nev.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.165(l) — 1 case
Mendoza-Lobos v. State, 218 P.3d 501 (Nev. 2009).
“Before pronouncing sentence, the State reminded the district court that, pursuant to NRS 193.165, it was required to make "finding[s] on the record" regarding the sentences imposed for deadly weapon enhancements.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 193.165(l)(a) — 1 case
Mendoza-Lobos v. State, 218 P.3d 501 (Nev. 2009).
“Before pronouncing sentence, the State reminded the district court that, pursuant to NRS 193.165, it was required to make "finding[s] on the record" regarding the sentences imposed for deadly weapon enhancements.”
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.