Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.065 (2026)

Inference of burglarious intent

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 205.065  Inference of burglarious intent.  Every person who unlawfully breaks and enters or unlawfully enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer or house trailer, airplane, glider, boat or railroad car may reasonably be inferred to have broken and entered or entered it with intent to commit grand or petit larceny, assault or battery on any person or a felony therein, unless the unlawful breaking and entering or unlawful entry is explained by evidence satisfactory to the jury to have been made without criminal intent.

      [1911 C&P § 370; RL § 6635; NCL § 10320]—(NRS A 1959, 19; 1983, 718; 1989, 1207)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1965–2022 · leading case: Hollis v. State, 606 P.2d 534 (Nev. 1980).
Hollis v. State, 606 P.2d 534 (Nev. 1980). · cites it 3× “Rehearing was granted for the limited purpose of entertaining argument regarding jury instructions on the presumption of intent for burglary, NRS 205.065, and the effect of Sandstrom v.”
Redeford v. State, 572 P.2d 219 (Nev. 1977). · cites it 3× “Appellant urges that the statutory presumption of intent as set forth in NRS 205.065 4 is violative of due process and the right against self-incrimination.”
Tucker v. State, 553 P.2d 951 (Nev. 1976). · cites it 2× “Additionally, as stated supra, the officers testified he walked properly and spoke without slurring his words. The jury was advised that the fact of Tucker’s intoxication might be taken into consideration in determining intent.”
Barlow (keith) v. State (death Penalty-direct), 2022 NV 25 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 2× “We disagree because the instruction accurately reflects NRS 205.065, and we have consistently upheld the statutes constitutionality.”
McNeeley v. State, 409 P.2d 135 (Nev. 1965). · cites it 3× “They disregard, however, NRS 205.065 creating such an inference. 3 Statutory establishment of inferences similar to NRS 205.”
Owens v. State, 620 P.2d 1236 (Nev. 1980). “See NRS 205.065. Since appellant was acquitted on that charge, the comment obviously caused no prejudice.”
White v. State, 429 P.2d 55 (Nev. 1967). · cites it 2× “Does NRS 205.065 violate due process of law? 3.”
Fritz v. State, 474 P.2d 377 (Nev. 1970). · cites it 3× “After the jury verdict was received, the appellant’s motion for a new trial was denied, however, at a special hearing the district court judge, pursuant to NRS 207.”
Schnepp v. State, 415 P.2d 619 (Nev. 1966). “This instruction is in the same language of NRS 205.065. The statute and instruction given in the language of this statute has been held constitutional.”
Shepp v. State, 484 P.2d 563 (Nev. 1971). “A final assignment of error, relevant only to the burglary convictions, attacks the instruction based upon NRS 205.065 that one who unlawfully enters a building is deemed to have entered with the intent to commit larceny or a felony unless such unlawful entry shall be explained…”
Larsen v. State, 470 P.2d 417 (Nev. 1970). “060(1), the burglary statute, reads: “Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, bam, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer or housetrailer, or railroad car, with intent to commit…”
Kiper v. State, 655 P.2d 526 (Nev. 1982). “1 The jury was not instructed on the statutory intent presumption contained in NRS 205.065 as modified by NRS 47.230(2).”
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.