NRS
205.240 Petit larceny; penalty.
1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 205.220, 205.226, 205.228,
475.105 and 501.3765, a person commits petit larceny
if the person:
(a) Intentionally steals, takes and carries away,
leads away or drives away:
(1) Personal goods or property, with a
value of less than $1,200, owned by another person;
(2) Bedding, furniture or other property,
with a value of less than $1,200, which the person, as a lodger, is to use in
or with his or her lodging and which is owned by another person; or
(3) Real property, with a value of less
than $1,200, that the person has converted into personal property by severing
it from real property owned by another person.
(b) Intentionally steals, takes and carries away,
leads away, drives away or entices away one or more domesticated animals or
domesticated birds, with an aggregate value of less than $1,200, owned by
another person.
2. Unless a greater penalty is provided
pursuant to NRS 205.267, a person who
commits petit larceny is guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition to any other
penalty, the court shall order the person to pay restitution.
[1911 C&P § 374; A 1947,
85; 1949,
127; 1943 NCL § 10324]—(NRS A 1965,
300, 1007;
1967,
500; 1969,
531; 1983,
547; 1985,
751; 1989,
1434; 1995,
13; 1997,
342, 1114;
1999,
3109; 2009,
1243; 2011,
165; 2013,
1003; 2019,
4431)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2023 · leading case:
Ibarra v. State, 426 P.3d 16 (Nev. 2018).
Ibarra v. State, 426 P.3d 16 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 6× “See NRS 205.240. Stealing property worth less than $3,500 under circumstances amounting to larceny from the person, by contrast, is a category C felony.”
Dias v. State, 601 P.2d 706 (Nev. 1979).
“060) and petit larceny (NRS 205.240), Steven Michael Dias contends we *712 must reverse because he was denied his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when hearsay evidence regarding his identification as the perpetrator of the charged crimes was admitted at his trial.”
Bullis v. State, 426 P.2d 423 (Nev. 1967).
“220) and petty larceny (NRS 205.240) which, it was alleged, made the information defective because one or the other should be specified.”
Ibarra (gabriel) Vs. State, 2018 NV 70 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 12× “See NRS 205.240. Stealing property worth less than $3,500 under circumstances amounting to larceny from the person, by contrast, is a category C felony.”
Ibarra (gabriel) Vs. State, 2018 NV 70 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 12× “See NRS 205.240. Stealing property worth less than $3,500 under circumstances amounting to larceny from the person, by contrast, is a category C felony.”
Hodges (Andrew) v. State (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 4× “He adds that both the petit larceny statute, NRS 205.240, and grand larceny statute, NRS 205.”
Hodges (Andrew) v. State (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 4× “He adds that both the petit larceny statute, NRS 205.240, and grand larceny statute, NRS 205.”
Morales v. Garrett (D. Nev. 2023).
“[Morales] did not demonstrate that counsel was objectively unreasonable in failing to request a jury instruction for petit 18 larceny, see NRS 205.240(1)(a)(1) (defining it in relevant part as the intentional taking and carrying away of personal property of another), where doing…”
Morales (Steven) v. State (Nev. 2014).
“Appellant did not demonstrate that counsel was objectively unreasonable in failing to request a jury instruction for petit larceny, see NRS 205.240(1)(a)(1) (defining it in relevant part as the intentional taking and carrying away of personal property of another), where doing so…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.240(1)(a) — 3 cases
Ibarra v. State, 426 P.3d 16 (Nev. 2018).
“See NRS 205.240. Stealing property worth less than $3,500 under circumstances amounting to larceny from the person, by contrast, is a category C felony.”
Ibarra (gabriel) Vs. State, 2018 NV 70 (Nev. 2018).
“See NRS 205.240. Stealing property worth less than $3,500 under circumstances amounting to larceny from the person, by contrast, is a category C felony.”
Ibarra (gabriel) Vs. State, 2018 NV 70 (Nev. 2018).
“See NRS 205.240. Stealing property worth less than $3,500 under circumstances amounting to larceny from the person, by contrast, is a category C felony.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.240(1)(a)(1) — 4 cases
Hodges (Andrew) v. State (Nev. 2019).
“He adds that both the petit larceny statute, NRS 205.240, and grand larceny statute, NRS 205.”
Hodges (Andrew) v. State (Nev. 2019).
“He adds that both the petit larceny statute, NRS 205.240, and grand larceny statute, NRS 205.”
Morales v. Garrett (D. Nev. 2023).
“[Morales] did not demonstrate that counsel was objectively unreasonable in failing to request a jury instruction for petit 18 larceny, see NRS 205.240(1)(a)(1) (defining it in relevant part as the intentional taking and carrying away of personal property of another), where doing…”
Morales (Steven) v. State (Nev. 2014).
“Appellant did not demonstrate that counsel was objectively unreasonable in failing to request a jury instruction for petit larceny, see NRS 205.240(1)(a)(1) (defining it in relevant part as the intentional taking and carrying away of personal property of another), where doing so…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.240(2) — 5 cases
Ibarra v. State, 426 P.3d 16 (Nev. 2018).
“See NRS 205.240. Stealing property worth less than $3,500 under circumstances amounting to larceny from the person, by contrast, is a category C felony.”
Ibarra (gabriel) Vs. State, 2018 NV 70 (Nev. 2018).
“See NRS 205.240. Stealing property worth less than $3,500 under circumstances amounting to larceny from the person, by contrast, is a category C felony.”
Ibarra (gabriel) Vs. State, 2018 NV 70 (Nev. 2018).
“See NRS 205.240. Stealing property worth less than $3,500 under circumstances amounting to larceny from the person, by contrast, is a category C felony.”
Hodges (Andrew) v. State (Nev. 2019).
“He adds that both the petit larceny statute, NRS 205.240, and grand larceny statute, NRS 205.”
Hodges (Andrew) v. State (Nev. 2019).
“He adds that both the petit larceny statute, NRS 205.240, and grand larceny statute, NRS 205.”
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.