NRS
200.450 Challenges to fight; penalties.
1. If a person, upon previous concert and
agreement, fights with any other person or gives, sends or authorizes any other
person to give or send a challenge verbally or in writing to fight any other
person, the person giving, sending or accepting the challenge to fight any
other person shall be punished:
(a) If the fight does not involve the use of a
deadly weapon, for a gross misdemeanor; or
(b) If the fight involves the use of a deadly
weapon, for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a
minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6
years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.
2. A person who acts for another in
giving, sending, or accepting, either verbally or in writing, a challenge to
fight any other person shall be punished:
(a) If the fight does not involve the use of a
deadly weapon, for a gross misdemeanor; or
(b) If the fight involves the use of a deadly
weapon, for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a
minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6
years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.
3. Should death ensue to a person in such
a fight, or should a person die from any injuries received in such a fight, the
person causing or having any agency in causing the death, either by fighting or
by giving or sending for himself or herself or for any other person, or in
receiving for himself or herself or for any other person, the challenge to
fight, is guilty of murder in the first degree which is a category A felony and
shall be punished as provided in subsection 4 of NRS 200.030.
[1911 C&P § 161; RL § 6426; NCL § 10108]—(NRS A 1967,
472; 1977,
884; 1979,
1426; 1995,
1189; 1999,
2)
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2021 · leading case:
Wilmeth v. State, 610 P.2d 735 (Nev. 1980).
Wilmeth v. State, 610 P.2d 735 (Nev. 1980).
· cites it 6× “They are: (1) Whether the challenge to fight statute is void for vagueness; (2) Whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that appellant was not required to retreat; and (3) Whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct on lesser included offenses.”
Leonard v. State, 958 P.2d 1220 (Nev. 1998).
· cites it 4× “" [2] We conclude that Wessel and Saunders were not ineffective in arguing self-defense but performed reasonably well given the task they faced. Despite CO Bascus's testimony that Leonard attacked first and the fact that Leonard emerged basically unharmed, it was not…”
Brass v. State, 291 P.3d 145 (Nev. 2012).
“Jermaine also argues that NRS 200.450 is void for vagueness, the State offered invalid theories for his murder conviction, the district court made evi-dentiary errors requiring reversal, assistance of counsel at trial was ineffective, the district court gave incorrect jury…”
Pimentel, III (luis) Vs. State, 2017 NV 31 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 46× “NRS 200.450 provides that if any "person, upon previous concert and agreement, fights with any other person" and "[s]hould death ensue to [the other] person in such a fight," the surviving fighter is guilty of first-degree murder.”
Pimentel, III (luis) Vs. State, 2017 NV 31 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 23× “NRS 200.450 provides that if any "person, upon previous concert and agreement, fights with any other person" and "[s]hould death ensue to [the other] person in such a fight," the surviving fighter is guilty of first-degree murder.”
Moore (Quentin) Vs. State, 486 P.3d 723 (Nev. 2021).
· cites it 4× “3d 759 , 765 (2017) (holding that "NRS 200.450 does not criminalize speech because without an ensuing fight there is no criminal liability" (emphasis added)); Wilmeth v.”
Pimentel (Luis) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Petitioner argues that the language in the information alleging that he committed murder by "shooting at and/or into the body" of the victim "after challenging [the victim] to a fight" was not sufficient to adequately inform him of the State's challenge-to-fight theory of first…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.450(1) — 2 cases
Pimentel, III (luis) Vs. State, 2017 NV 31 (Nev. 2017).
“NRS 200.450 provides that if any "person, upon previous concert and agreement, fights with any other person" and "[s]hould death ensue to [the other] person in such a fight," the surviving fighter is guilty of first-degree murder.”
Pimentel, III (luis) Vs. State, 2017 NV 31 (Nev. 2017).
“NRS 200.450 provides that if any "person, upon previous concert and agreement, fights with any other person" and "[s]hould death ensue to [the other] person in such a fight," the surviving fighter is guilty of first-degree murder.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.450(1)(a) — 1 case
Moore (Quentin) Vs. State, 486 P.3d 723 (Nev. 2021).
“3d 759 , 765 (2017) (holding that "NRS 200.450 does not criminalize speech because without an ensuing fight there is no criminal liability" (emphasis added)); Wilmeth v.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.450(1)(b) — 1 case
Moore (Quentin) Vs. State, 486 P.3d 723 (Nev. 2021).
“3d 759 , 765 (2017) (holding that "NRS 200.450 does not criminalize speech because without an ensuing fight there is no criminal liability" (emphasis added)); Wilmeth v.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.450(3) — 5 cases
Leonard v. State, 958 P.2d 1220 (Nev. 1998).
“" [2] We conclude that Wessel and Saunders were not ineffective in arguing self-defense but performed reasonably well given the task they faced. Despite CO Bascus's testimony that Leonard attacked first and the fact that Leonard emerged basically unharmed, it was not…”
Pimentel, III (luis) Vs. State, 2017 NV 31 (Nev. 2017).
“NRS 200.450 provides that if any "person, upon previous concert and agreement, fights with any other person" and "[s]hould death ensue to [the other] person in such a fight," the surviving fighter is guilty of first-degree murder.”
Pimentel, III (luis) Vs. State, 2017 NV 31 (Nev. 2017).
“NRS 200.450 provides that if any "person, upon previous concert and agreement, fights with any other person" and "[s]hould death ensue to [the other] person in such a fight," the surviving fighter is guilty of first-degree murder.”
Moore (Quentin) Vs. State, 486 P.3d 723 (Nev. 2021).
“3d 759 , 765 (2017) (holding that "NRS 200.450 does not criminalize speech because without an ensuing fight there is no criminal liability" (emphasis added)); Wilmeth v.”
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.