Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 201 - CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC DECENCY AND GOOD MORALS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 201.220 (2026)

Indecent or obscene exposure; penalty

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 201.220  Indecent or obscene exposure; penalty.

      1.  A person who makes any open and indecent or obscene exposure of his or her person, or of the person of another, is guilty:

      (a) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, for the first offense, of a gross misdemeanor.

      (b) For any subsequent offense, or if the person has previously been convicted of a sexual offense as defined in NRS 179D.097, of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.

      (c) For an offense committed by a person 18 years of age or older in the presence of a child under the age of 18 years or a vulnerable person as defined in paragraph (a) of subsection 8 of NRS 200.5092, of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.

      2.  For the purposes of this section, the breast feeding of a child by the mother of the child does not constitute an act of open and indecent or obscene exposure of her body.

      [Part 1911 C&P § 195; A 1921, 112; NCL § 10142]—(NRS A 1965, 1465; 1967, 476; 1973, 96, 255, 1406; 1977, 867; 1979, 1429; 1983, 206; 1991, 1008; 1995, 127, 1200, 1327; 1997, 2501, 3189; 2015, 2240; 2017, 1381, 2983)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: State v. Castaneda, 245 P.3d 550 (Nev. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Castaneda, 245 P.3d 550 (Nev. 2010). · cites it 45× “Castaneda was arrested and charged with indecent exposure under NRS 201.220. He entered a plea of not guilty and also asserted a constitutional challenge to the statute, arguing that it is facially vague and overbroad and cannot be enforced, even if the State were to prove the…”
Ebeling v. State, 91 P.3d 599 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 9× “We also conclude that NRS 201.220 allows for only one charge of indecent exposure, regardless of the number of victims.”
State v. Quinn, 30 P.3d 1117 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 4× “During this time, NRS 201.220(1) provided that indecent exposure was a gross misdemeanor for the first offense, and a felony for subsequent offenses.”
Lader v. Warden, N. Nevada Corr. Ctr., 120 P.3d 1164 (Nev. 2005). “210 (open or gross lewdness); NRS 201.220 (indecent or obscene exposure); NRS 202.”
Saletta v. State, 254 P.3d 111 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 2× “1 Saletta contends that insufficient evidence supports his conviction; however, this claim lacks merit because the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the State is sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a rational trier of…”
Jackson v. State, 291 P.3d 1274 (Nev. 2012). “3d 599, 601-02 (2004) (NRS 201.220(1) criminalizes the act of exposing oneself and is not a per-witness offense); and Bedard v.”
United States v. Adam Shepherd, 880 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 2018). “Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 201.220 . Shepherd was charged by information, which did not refer to the age of the victims but did refer to his previous Arizona conviction.”
Schmidt v. State, 584 P.2d 695 (Nev. 1978). · cites it 3× “*666 OPINION Per Curiam: Walter Lewis Schmidt was charged with the crime of indecent or obscene exposure in violation of NRS 201.220, a felony as defined by NRS 201.”
Young v. State, 849 P.2d 336 (Nev. 1993). · cites it 2× “210 or NRS 201.220 does not require proof of intent to offend an observer or even that the exposure was observed.”
State v. Sargent, 128 P.3d 1052 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 2× “The State charged Joseph Timothy Sargent with indecent exposure under NRS 201.220. Sargent filed a waiver of personal appearance at the preliminary hearing before the justice court.”
Austin v. State, 151 P.3d 60 (Nev. 2007). · cites it 2× “210, if punished as a felony; (i) Indecent or obscene exposure pursuant to NRS 201.220, if punished as a felony; (j) Lewdness with a child pursuant to NRS 201.”
Quiriconi v. State, 591 P.2d 1133 (Nev. 1979). · cites it 2× “OPINION Per Curiam: A jury convicted Steven Dario Quiriconi of indecent exposure, a violation of NRS 201.220. 1 The complaint and information alleged that he “did willfully and unlawfully make an open, indecent, and obscene exposure of his person.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 201.220(1) — 6 cases
State v. Castaneda, 245 P.3d 550 (Nev. 2010). “Castaneda was arrested and charged with indecent exposure under NRS 201.220. He entered a plea of not guilty and also asserted a constitutional challenge to the statute, arguing that it is facially vague and overbroad and cannot be enforced, even if the State were to prove the…”
Ebeling v. State, 91 P.3d 599 (Nev. 2004). “We also conclude that NRS 201.220 allows for only one charge of indecent exposure, regardless of the number of victims.”
State v. Quinn, 30 P.3d 1117 (Nev. 2001). “During this time, NRS 201.220(1) provided that indecent exposure was a gross misdemeanor for the first offense, and a felony for subsequent offenses.”
Jackson v. State, 291 P.3d 1274 (Nev. 2012). “3d 599, 601-02 (2004) (NRS 201.220(1) criminalizes the act of exposing oneself and is not a per-witness offense); and Bedard v.”
State of Iowa v. Christopher James Wilson (Iowa 2024).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 201.220(1)(b) — 1 case
Sheriff, Clark Cnty. v. Hecht, 710 P.2d 728 (Nev. 1985).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 201.220(2) — 1 case
State v. Castaneda, 245 P.3d 550 (Nev. 2010). “Castaneda was arrested and charged with indecent exposure under NRS 201.220. He entered a plea of not guilty and also asserted a constitutional challenge to the statute, arguing that it is facially vague and overbroad and cannot be enforced, even if the State were to prove the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 201.220(l) — 1 case
State v. Castaneda, 245 P.3d 550 (Nev. 2010). “Castaneda was arrested and charged with indecent exposure under NRS 201.220. He entered a plea of not guilty and also asserted a constitutional challenge to the statute, arguing that it is facially vague and overbroad and cannot be enforced, even if the State were to prove the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 201.220(l)(b) — 1 case
Schmidt v. State, 584 P.2d 695 (Nev. 1978). “*666 OPINION Per Curiam: Walter Lewis Schmidt was charged with the crime of indecent or obscene exposure in violation of NRS 201.220, a felony as defined by NRS 201.”
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.