NRS
200.310 Degrees.
1. A person who willfully seizes,
confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries
away a person by any means whatsoever with the intent to hold or detain, or who
holds or detains, the person for ransom, or reward, or for the purpose of
committing sexual assault, extortion or robbery upon or from the person, or for
the purpose of killing the person or inflicting substantial bodily harm upon
the person, or to exact from relatives, friends, or any other person any money
or valuable thing for the return or disposition of the kidnapped person, and a
person who leads, takes, entices, or carries away or detains any minor with the
intent to keep, imprison, or confine the minor from his or her parents,
guardians, or any other person having lawful custody of the minor, or with the
intent to hold the minor to unlawful service, or perpetrate upon the person of
the minor any unlawful act is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree which is
a category A felony.
2. A person who willfully and without
authority of law seizes, inveigles, takes, carries away or kidnaps another
person with the intent to keep the person secretly imprisoned within the State,
or for the purpose of conveying the person out of the State without authority
of law, or in any manner held to service or detained against the person’s will,
is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree which is a category B felony.
[1:165:1947; 1943 NCL § 10612.05]—(NRS A 1959,
20; 1979,
39; 1987,
495; 1995,
1184)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
110
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case:
Hernandez v. State, 50 P.3d 1100 (Nev. 2002).
Hernandez v. State, 50 P.3d 1100 (Nev. 2002).
· cites it 9× “Hernandez argues that this statute is more specific than and takes precedence over NRS 200.310, which proscribes kidnapping as either a category A or B felony, but does not explicitly address the taking of a child by a parent with limited custody.”
Lofthouse (jason) Vs. State, 2020 NV 44 (Nev. 2020).
· cites it 18× “540 as a crime against the minor's person for purposes of NRS 200.310, we conclude that Lofthouse's convictions of first-degree kidnapping cannot stand.”
Mendoza v. State, 130 P.3d 176 (Nev. 2006).
· cites it 4× “More particularly, Hutchins states as follows: “While the plain language of NRS 200.310(1) does not require asportation, the court has required it when the kidnapping is incidental to another offense, such as robbery, where restraint of the victim is inherent with the primary…”
United States v. Gonzalez-Ramirez, 477 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 3× “§ 97-3-53 (2006) (requires that the offense be "against the will" of the legal custodian); Nev.Rev.Stat. § 200.310(1) (2005); N.H.Rev.”
United States v. Tavares Chandler, 743 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 6× “The panel also held that second degree kidnapping in Nevada, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 200.310 , 200.330, categorically involves a serious risk that physical force may be used in the course of committing the offense; that this risk is roughly similar to the risk involved in burglary;…”
Wright v. State, 581 P.2d 442 (Nev. 1978).
· cites it 4× “shall be deemed guilty of kidnaping in the first degree.” The penalty therefor, when no substantial bodily harm is sustained by the victim, is life with the possibility of parole.”
Garcia v. State, 113 P.3d 836 (Nev. 2005).
· cites it 2× “” 10 While the language of NRS 200.310(1) does not include an asportation requirement, this court requires it when the kidnapping is incidental to an associated offense, such as robbery, that inherently involves the restraint of the victim.”
Doyle v. State, 921 P.2d 901 (Nev. 1996).
· cites it 2× “of first-degree kidnaping is defined in pertinent part, as follows: Every person who willfully seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away any person by any means whatsoever with the intent to hold or detain, or who holds or detains,…”
Kaczmarek v. State, 91 P.3d 16 (Nev. 2004).
“See NRS 200.310(1); Doyle v. State, 112 Nev. at 892-93, 921 P.”
Hutchins v. State, 867 P.2d 1136 (Nev. 1994).
· cites it 2× “NRS 200.310(1) provides: Every person who willfully seizes, confines .”
State v. Nims, 357 N.W.2d 608 (Iowa 1984).
· cites it 2× “9 (1968); Nev. Rev.Stat. §§ 200.310, 200.320 (1980); S.”
Clem v. State, 760 P.2d 103 (Nev. 1988).
· cites it 2× “THE KIDNAPPING CHARGES Appellants contend that because the kidnapping was incidental to the extortion and mayhem, the State must prove Sexton was moved to establish kidnapping as a separate offense.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.310(1) — 63 cases
Lofthouse (jason) Vs. State, 2020 NV 44 (Nev. 2020).
“540 as a crime against the minor's person for purposes of NRS 200.310, we conclude that Lofthouse's convictions of first-degree kidnapping cannot stand.”
Mendoza v. State, 130 P.3d 176 (Nev. 2006).
“More particularly, Hutchins states as follows: “While the plain language of NRS 200.310(1) does not require asportation, the court has required it when the kidnapping is incidental to another offense, such as robbery, where restraint of the victim is inherent with the primary…”
Garcia v. State, 113 P.3d 836 (Nev. 2005).
“” 10 While the language of NRS 200.310(1) does not include an asportation requirement, this court requires it when the kidnapping is incidental to an associated offense, such as robbery, that inherently involves the restraint of the victim.”
Doyle v. State, 921 P.2d 901 (Nev. 1996).
“of first-degree kidnaping is defined in pertinent part, as follows: Every person who willfully seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away any person by any means whatsoever with the intent to hold or detain, or who holds or detains,…”
Hernandez v. State, 50 P.3d 1100 (Nev. 2002).
“Hernandez argues that this statute is more specific than and takes precedence over NRS 200.310, which proscribes kidnapping as either a category A or B felony, but does not explicitly address the taking of a child by a parent with limited custody.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.310(2) — 17 cases
Hernandez v. State, 50 P.3d 1100 (Nev. 2002).
“Hernandez argues that this statute is more specific than and takes precedence over NRS 200.310, which proscribes kidnapping as either a category A or B felony, but does not explicitly address the taking of a child by a parent with limited custody.”
United States v. Gonzalez-Ramirez, 477 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2007).
“§ 97-3-53 (2006) (requires that the offense be "against the will" of the legal custodian); Nev.Rev.Stat. § 200.310(1) (2005); N.H.Rev.”
Mendoza v. State, 130 P.3d 176 (Nev. 2006).
“More particularly, Hutchins states as follows: “While the plain language of NRS 200.310(1) does not require asportation, the court has required it when the kidnapping is incidental to another offense, such as robbery, where restraint of the victim is inherent with the primary…”
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.