NRS
199.240 Bribing or intimidating witness to influence testimony. A person who:
1. Gives, offers or promises directly or
indirectly any compensation, gratuity or reward to any witness or person who
may be called as a witness in an official proceeding, upon an agreement or
understanding that his or her testimony will be thereby influenced; or
2. Uses any force, threat, intimidation or
deception with the intent to:
(a) Influence the testimony of any witness or
person who may be called as a witness in an official proceeding;
(b) Cause or induce him or her to give false
testimony or to withhold true testimony; or
(c) Cause or induce him or her to withhold a
record, document or other object from the proceeding,
Ê is guilty of
a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130, and may be further punished by
a fine of not more than $50,000.
[1911 C&P § 56; RL § 6321; NCL § 10005]—(NRS A 1967,
465; 1979,
1421; 1983,
1683; 1995,
1176)
Notes of Decisions
In Re Discipline of Schaefer, 25 P.3d 191 (Nev. 2001).
“31 NRS 199.240 (providing that offering compensation or reward to a witness to influence his testimony in an official proceeding is a category C felony).”
Fox v. Sheriff, 467 P.2d 1022 (Nev. 1970).
· cites it 3× “Fox was certified for trial for violation of NRS 199.240, 1 the bribing of a witness to influence his testimony.”
Fox Vs. Warren C/W 81212 (Nev. 2021).
· cites it 6× “"A district court's decision to implement sanctions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
Fox Vs. Warren C/W 81212 (Nev. 2021).
· cites it 6× “"A district court's decision to implement sanctions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
Anderson (Arnold) v. State (Nev. 2017).
“ismiss case is double jeopardy," denying a motion to dismiss standby counsel, denying a motion to dismiss based on malicious vindictive prosecution, denying a motion to oppose state's opposition to dismiss, denying a motion for full Brady discovery, denying a motion for…”
Leighty (Daniel) v. State (Nev. 2014).
“The jury could reasonably infer from the evidence presented that Robbins and/or Angel intimidated a witness by threatening to kill or SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (D) 1947A cause injury to Cater and/or Cater's son unless Cater recanted his accusations against Robinson and that…”
Fox v. State, 477 P.2d 591 (Nev. 1970).
“NRS 199.240. The contention of error is that the information upon which he was tried was fatally defective in this— it charged that on April 26, 1969, Fox offered a witness $500 not to testify against him at a preliminary hearing scheduled for June 8, 1969.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 199.240(2)(a) — 1 case
Leighty (Daniel) v. State (Nev. 2014).
“The jury could reasonably infer from the evidence presented that Robbins and/or Angel intimidated a witness by threatening to kill or SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (D) 1947A cause injury to Cater and/or Cater's son unless Cater recanted his accusations against Robinson and that…”
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.