Contact Us
Attorney Chandon S. Alexander is a Las Vegas lawyer who is an active member of the National Trial Lawyers Association and has been recognized as one of the Top 10 Attorneys under 40. He is a member of the Clark County Bar Association, American Bar Association, and the Nevada Justice Association.
According to NRS 205.220, grand larceny is defined as “Intentionally steals, takes and carries away, leads away, or drives away: Personal goods or property, with a value of $650 or more, owned by another person.” In Las Vegas, some of the more common types of grand larceny involve stealing, taking, leading away, or driving away another person’s property without his or her consent. For a grand larceny charge in Las Vegas, the value of the property must be over $650, otherwise, it may be considered petit larceny instead. Nevada law also specifies certain behavior that can also result in a grand larceny charge, for example:
For all of these activities, the value of the property must be more than $650 for an individual to face grand larceny charges in Las Vegas. However, if the property is worth less than $250, the individual would be more likely to face petit larceny charges in Las Vegas.
There are plenty of instances that can justify grand larceny charges in Las Vegas. The most obvious and common cause occurs when a suspect breaks into and steals someone else’s vehicle, commonly referred to as grand larceny of a motor vehicle under NRS 205.228. Another instance of grand larceny could be if you rented a car for work but continued to use it when you were no longer had the authority to do so. For example, if the agreed-upon time frame expired for the rented car has expired. No matter the reason for the charges, if you are convicted of grand larceny in Nevada, you could face the following penalties:
Luckily, there are many strong defenses that can be deployed for grand larceny charges in Las Vegas, especially if it’s your first-time facing this crime. By consulting with a grand larceny lawyer at the Spartacus Law Firm, we can help determine the best defense approach to your case and create a strategy to maximize your chances of reaching a successful outcome.
If the value of the property is more than $1,200 but less than $5,000, the convicted individual would be charged with a category D felony, which carries a potential sentence of 1 to 4 years in the Nevada Department of Corrections and a fine of up to $5,000 (NRS 205.222.2(a)).
If the property that is stolen is a firearm, then the value of the firearm is irrelevant. the convicted individual would be charged with a category B felony, which carries a potential sentence of 1 to 10 years in the Nevada Department of Corrections and a fine of up to $10,000 (NRS 205.226). Thus, Grand Larceny of a Firearm is essentially Larceny with the element that the property taken is a firearm.
Prior to 1995, Nevada did not specifically criminalize stealing/larceny/theft of firearms. Rather, larcenies involving firearms were ostensibly prosecuted under general theft/larceny statutes which prohibited taking another’s property with the intent to permanently deprive the person of his property. Similar to today, pre-1995 punishment for larceny punishment depended upon the property’s value. Thus, because larcenies involving firearms were prosecuted under the general larceny statute, punishment for stealing firearms depended upon their value.
Larceny is a specific intent crime. See e.g. Harvey v. State. 78 Nev. 417, 419 (1962). Specific intent is “the intent to accomplish the precise act which the law prohibits.” Bolden v. State, 121 Nev. 908, 923 (2005), receded from on other grounds by Cortinas v. State, 124 Nev. 1013, 1026-27 (2008). When a defendant commits larceny, he must take property with the intent to permanently deprive the property from the rightful owner. See State v. Ryan, 12 Nev. 401 (1877); Francis Sayre, Mens Rea, Harv. L. Rev. 974, 999 (1932); 50 Am. Jur. 2d Larceny § 31 (2019). Importantly, the “intent to deprive permanently” must coincide with the initial taking. Harvey , 78 Nev. at 419 (“…to constitute larceny, there must exist in the mind of the perpetrator, at the time of the taking , the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.” Wayne R. LaFave, Larceny – Intent to Steal, 3 Subst. Crim. L. § 19.5(f) (3rd ed. 2018) (“With larceny … the defendant’s conduct and his mental state must coincide.”); 52B C.J.S. Larceny § 55 (June 2019); 3 Wharton’s Criminal Law § 350 (15th Ed. 2018).
This court has previously held, “[w]hen an intent requirement is supplied in the statute, in order to sustain a conviction, that intent must be proven as to each element of the crime .” Garcia v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct, 117 Nev. 697, 701 (2001) (emphasis added); See also Elonis v. U.S., 135 S.Ct. 2001, 2009 (2015) (“…a defendant generally must ‘know the facts that make his conduct fit the definition of the offense.'”) (quoting Staples v. U.S., 511 U.S. 600, 608 (1994));; David Crump, What Does Intent Mean? 38 Hofstra L. Rev. 1059, 1068 (2010) (“What specific intent really means is that the actor has intent to commit (or knowledge that he is committing) all of the elements of the crime.” (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 826 (8th ed. 2004)); Eric A. Johnson, Understanding General and Specific Intent: Eight Things I Know For Sure, 13 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 521, 527 (2016).
