Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 205 - CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.110 (2026)

Uttering forged instruments: Forgery

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 205.110  Uttering forged instruments: Forgery.  Every person who, knowing the same to be forged or altered, and with intent to defraud, shall utter, offer, dispose of or put off as true, or have in his or her possession with intent so to utter, offer, dispose of or put off any forged writing, instrument or other thing, the false making, forging or altering of which is punishable as forgery, shall be guilty of forgery the same as if the person had forged the same.

      [1911 C&P § 402; RL § 6667; NCL § 10354]

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: In Re Trejos, 352 B.R. 249 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Trejos, 352 B.R. 249 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2006). · cites it 2× “See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 205.110 (“Every person who, knowing the same to be forged or altered, and with intent to defraud, shall utter .”
O'NEILL v. State, 153 P.3d 38 (Nev. 2007). “FACTS A grand jury indicted appellant Christopher O’Neill on three counts of ‘ ‘possession of a forged instrument, a violation of NRS 205.110.” The State subsequently filed a notice of intent to have O’Neill classified as a habitual criminal pursuant to NRS 207.”
Bell v. State, 885 P.2d 1311 (Nev. 1994). “Bell was subsequently tried before a jury without the benefit of Beyers’ appearance or testimony.”
State v. Degraffenreid, III (james) (Crim.), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 56 (Nev. 2025). · cites it 20× “The underlying charges were filed in Clark County and relate to acts involving false and forged instruments under NRS 205.110 and NRS 239.330. The indictment alleges that respondents mailed false electoral vote certificates related to the 2020 presidential election to Judge…”
Keeran (Brady) v. State (Nev. 2013). “090; NRS 205.110. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and Hannah did not testify.”
Anderson (Davis) v. State (Nev. 2014). “The police impounded the check and it was later admitted into evidence.”
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.