Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.725 (2026)

Preparing, advertising or distributing child sexual abuse material or computer-generated child sexual abuse material unlawful; penalty

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 200.725 Preparing, advertising or distributing child sexual abuse material or computer-generated child sexual abuse material unlawful; penalty.

1. A person shall not knowingly prepare, advertise or distribute any:

(a) Item or material that depicts a minor engaging in, or simulating, or assisting others to engage in or simulate, sexual conduct; or

(b) Computer-generated child sexual abuse material.

2. A person who violates the provisions of subsection 1:

(a) For the first offense, is guilty of a category B felony and shall 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 15 years, or by a fine of not more than $15,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.

(b) For any subsequent offense, is guilty of a category A felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 10 years and a maximum term of life with the possibility of parole, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $15,000.

3. A person convicted of a violation of this section may not be convicted of a violation of NRS 200.730 for possessing the same visual presentation.

(Added to NRS by 1995, 950; A 1995, 1337; 2025, 2556)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2004–2005 · leading case: Wilson v. State, 114 P.3d 285 (Nev. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wilson v. State, 114 P.3d 285 (Nev. 2005). “9 NRS 200.725. 10 NRS 200.730. 11 NRS 200.700(1).”

State v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Washoe, 89 P.3d 663 (Nev. 2004). “5 The State does not have an adequate remedy at law because NRS 200.725 specifically prohibits reproduction of child pornography and the district court ordered the State to violate that statute.”

State v. Dist. Ct.(Epperson), 89 P.3d 663 (Nev. 2004). “[5] The State does not have an adequate remedy at law because NRS 200.725 specifically prohibits reproduction of child pornography and the district court ordered the State to violate that statute.”

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.