NRS
194.020 Persons liable to punishment. The
following persons, except as provided in
NRS
194.010, are liable to punishment:
1. A person who commits in the State any
crime, in whole or in part.
2. A person who commits out of the State
any act which, if committed within it, would be larceny, and is afterward found
in the State with any of the stolen property.
3. A person who, being out of the State,
counsels, causes, procures, aids or abets another to commit a crime in this
State.
4. A person who, being out of the State,
abducts or kidnaps, by force or fraud, any person, contrary to the laws of the
place where the act is committed, and brings, sends or conveys such person into
this State.
5. A person who commits an act without the
State which affects persons or property within the State, or the public health,
morals or decency of the State, which, if committed within the State, would be
a crime.
[1911 C&P § 2; RL § 6267; NCL § 9951]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases, 1971–1991 · leading case:
Austin v. State, 491 P.2d 724 (Nev. 1971).
Austin v. State, 491 P.2d 724 (Nev. 1971).
· cites it 2× “t inasmuch as the statute does not specify that an "accomplice" must be liable to prosecution for the same offense in Nevada, a strong argument could be framed that Martin would be an "accomplice" if his testimony merely established that in concert with acts justifying…”
Epp v. State, 814 P.2d 1011 (Nev. 1991).
“A person who commits an act without the state which affects persons or property within the state, or the public health, morals or decency of the state, which, if committed within the state, would be a crime. Moreover, although Epp committed no act, “[i]f there is a duty to act,…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 194.020(1) — 1 case
Austin v. State, 491 P.2d 724 (Nev. 1971).
“t inasmuch as the statute does not specify that an "accomplice" must be liable to prosecution for the same offense in Nevada, a strong argument could be framed that Martin would be an "accomplice" if his testimony merely established that in concert with acts justifying…”
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.