Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 453.570 (2026)
Amount of controlled substance needed to sustain conviction for prohibited offense
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 453.570 Amount of controlled substance needed to sustain conviction for
prohibited offense. The amount of
a controlled substance needed to sustain a conviction of a person for an
offense prohibited by the provisions of NRS
453.011 to 453.552, inclusive, is
that amount necessary for identification as a controlled substance by a witness
qualified to make such identification.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 359; A 1973, 1218; 2001, 1064; 2003, 561)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1973–2020 · leading case: Figueroa-beltran Vs. U.S. of Am. (nrap 5), 2020 NV 45 (Nev. 2020).
Figueroa-beltran Vs. U.S. of Am. (nrap 5), 2020 NV 45 (Nev. 2020). “6 NRS 453.570 also points toward substance identity being an element of NRS 453.”
Dickson v. State, 822 P.2d 1122 (Nev. 1992). “[1] The current provisions of NRS 453.570 provide as follows: Amount of controlled substance needed to sustain conviction for prohibited offense.”
Sheriff, Clark Cnty. v. Benson, 509 P.2d 554 (Nev. 1973). “that the intent necessary to commit the crime of possession does not exist where the amount is so minute as to be incapable of any use even though chemical analysis may identify a trace of narcotics', has not been altered by NRS 453.570, which legislates not to the amount…”
State v. Groce, 983 P.2d 217 (Idaho Ct. App. 1999). “” Nev.Rev. Stat. § 453.570(1991). 5 . Notably, the drafters of the Model Uniform Act set forth criteria for determining how substances would be classified in schedules based on the following criteria: a substance’s potential for abuse, a substance’s known effects, the…”
Wolzok v. Sheriff, 559 P.2d 820 (Nev. 1977). “Nev. Rev. Stat. § 453.570 . Abbott v. Sheriff, 87 Nev.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 453.570(1991): 1 case
State v. Groce, 983 P.2d 217 (Idaho Ct. App. 1999). “” Nev.Rev. Stat. § 453.570(1991). 5 . Notably, the drafters of the Model Uniform Act set forth criteria for determining how substances would be classified in schedules based on the following criteria: a substance’s potential for abuse, a substance’s known effects, the…”
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.