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 Nevada law, robbery is defined in NRS 200.380 and carries felony punishments for anyone convicted of the offense. If it’s speculated that a weapon was used during this criminal act (which is often referred to as ‘armed robbery’), additional penalties will be imposed. Additionally, extortion, larceny from a person, assault, or conspiring with someone else to commit this crime may also result in further consequences.
If you have been arrested for either robbery or armed robbery, law enforcement and the prosecutor will work hard to convict you. You need an experienced and aggressive Las Vegas robbery attorney on your side to ensure your case is handled fairly. Contact the Spartacus Law Firm today for a free consultation and to learn more about how we can help.
According to NRS 200.380, robbery is defined as the unauthorized seizure of somebody else’s property from their person or in their presence using intimidation, forcefulness, violence, or threats of harm – either present or future – against them personally and/or their family members and companions at that moment. In other words, it entails an unlawful taking without consent while being aware thereof. This offense typically involves employing fear tactics for its successful execution.
Robbery is a distinct crime from theft offenses like burglary. Robbery is more than just an illegal taking of property—it’s a “crime against the person.” This can take many forms, such as typical street muggings, where force or threat thereof is used to acquire goods or facilitate escape. Burglary differs in that it primarily involves theft without harm inflicted on another person.
It is not necessary for a threat to be against the actual victim of a robbery in order for criminal charges to apply. Rather, if someone reasonably feels threatened by threats made towards an acquaintance or onlooker present during the incident, they may feel compelled to relinquish their possessions as part of the robbery. In Nevada, armed robbery–which requires any type of weapon is involved but does not always necessitate injury or use of said weapon–is classified as a very serious offense that results in a severe penalty and lengthy prison terms.
Committing robbery is a serious form of theft and can result in hefty consequences if convicted. If weapons were used or people were injured during the offense, legal charges such as assault, illegal possession of a deadly weapon, and armed robbery may be filed. The ramifications of these accusations are severe; thus it’s recommended to seek aid from an experienced Las Vegas robbery lawyer if you face any type of theft crime in Las Vegas.
In order for the state of Nevada to conclusively demonstrate an individual is guilty of committing a robbery, it must show that beyond any reasonable doubt the following elements are present:
Force, violence, or the threat of injury constitutes a taking if used to acquire another person’s property, resist opposition against such acquisition, and/or facilitate escape. These actions are meant to intimidate an individual into submission so that their possessions may be taken without permission.
Nevada law distinguishes robbery as a Category B felony, with the severity of the punishment contingent on whether or not tear gas or a deadly weapon was used. Often referred to as aggravated robbery or armed robbery, any object that could result in death is classified as a ‘deadly weapon.’ Examples of deadly weapons include:
In the state of Nevada, robbery without the use of tear gas or a deadly weapon can result in 2 to 15 years of imprisonment. The judge has the option to grant probation or suspend the sentence; however, if these weapons are used during a robbery offense, an additional prison term between 1 and 15 is mandated consecutively with any other sentence imposed – thus not allowing for suspension nor probation consideration. When determining this extra penalty length, five factors come under review by judges:
Where the record affirmatively disclosed that the defendant was fully and correctly advised as to the weapon-enhancement provision as well as the range of possible sentences that could be imposed, his plea was not subject to challenge because in agreeing to a guilty plea for “armed robbery,” he thought he was pleading guilty to a single offense when he was, in effect, pleading guilty to two separate offenses, robbery (this section) and use of a weapon in the commission of a crime (NRS 193.165), since NRS 193.165 does not create a separate offense but rather provides for an enhancement of the sentence when a weapon is used. Boyle v. Warden, Nev. State Prison, 95 Nev. 888, 603 P.2d 1068, 1979 Nev. LEXIS 684 (Nev. 1979).
Using a blank gun in the commission of the robbery was sufficient to support the weapons enhancement penalty. Anderson v. State, 96 Nev. 633, 614 P.2d 540, 1980 Nev. LEXIS 670 (Nev. 1980).
Just because you’ve been accused of robbery does not mean that there is no hope. At the Spartacus Law Firm, our experienced Las Vegas robbery attorney has had success constructing defense strategies to reduce or even refute the charges against their clients. Some of these approaches may include:
For an act to be deemed a robbery, it must involve the use of violence, force, or instilling apprehension in the victim. However, if the property was taken without applying intimidation tactics then typically larceny is charged instead.
For a person to be held responsible for the robbery, it must be demonstrated that they had the purposeful intent of taking someone else’s property while utilizing violence or intimidation. Without this intention, robbery charges in Las Vegas may not stick especially if you can build a defense proving this.
Should someone lack any evidence of possession or ownership, they have the right to dispute this allegation. If the property was not taken against another’s will, robbery charges may not be valid. A Las Vegas robbery lawyer can help prove this with the right evidence.
Masking their identity, criminals often make it difficult for witnesses to give a detailed description of the crime which can put prosecutors in an unfavorable position if they are unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the act. As such, dismissal or pleading guilty to lesser charges may be viable alternatives.
People wrongfully charged with all types of offenses are not uncommon, whether caused by a need for vengeance or misidentification. To protect themselves and their rights, defendants should seek the counsel of an experienced Las Vegas robbery attorney who will comprehensively review documents like witness testimonies and forensic data to build a solid defense case.
If one has a prior plea or conviction for robbery, there is a potential that the prior could be removed due to insufficient representation of counsel. Our robbery defense lawyer in Las Vegas can help you explore all of your options and determine the best path forward for your defense.
The courageousness or timidity of a robbery victim is irrelevant; it is the acts of the accused which constitute an intimidation. The standard is objective; if the fact be attended with circumstances of terror, such threatening word or gesture as in common experience is likely to create an apprehension of danger and induce a man to part with his property for the safety of his person, it is robbery. Mangerich v. State, 93 Nev. 683, 572 P.2d 542, 1977 Nev. LEXIS 663 (Nev. 1977).
Robbery is a felonious and violent taking away from the person of another, goods or money to any value, putting him in fear; it is not necessary to prove actual fear, as the law will presume it. Hayden v. State, 91 Nev. 474, 538 P.2d 583, 1975 Nev. LEXIS 676 (Nev. 1975).
Non-citizens who are charged with robbery in Nevada should seek legal counsel from an experienced Las Vegas robbery attorney urgently, as this type of offense can lead to deportation. A criminal defense lawyer may be able to negotiate a plea deal that reduces the charges to something less serious and thus not deportable.
If you were convicted of robbery in Nevada, your criminal record will remain for 10 years. But after this period passes, you can apply to have it sealed. If the case was dismissed from the court instead of a conviction being made, then your records can potentially be sealed right away – though the process may take several months before completion. To learn more about the record sealing process, contact the Spartacus Law Firm today for a free consultation.
In Nevada, robbery is classified as a Category B felony and the consequences depend on whether or not the defendant utilized tear gas or a deadly weapon. Also referred to as aggravated robbery or armed robbery, this offense carries even more serious penalties when there was the involvement of something that could be used for lethal purposes – deemed “deadly weapons”.
An agreement to share cocaine could not be enforced as a contract because of its illegal purpose; that does not mean, however, that the drugs could not be the subject of a robbery; by prohibiting possession of an item, the government does not license criminals to take it by force or stealth from other criminals. Guy v. State, 108 Nev. 770, 839 P.2d 578, 108 Nev. Adv. Rep. 126, 1992 Nev. LEXIS 149 (Nev. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1009, 113 S. Ct. 1656, 123 L. Ed. 2d 275, 1993 U.S. LEXIS 2499 (U.S. 1993).
Appellant argued that co-defendant’s shooting of victim was force “used merely as a means of escape.” However, where the evidence indicated that the firearm was used to overcome victim’s resistance to the taking of the drugs, this use of force satisfies the statutory definition of robbery. Guy v. State, 108 Nev. 770, 839 P.2d 578, 108 Nev. Adv. Rep. 126, 1992 Nev. LEXIS 149 (Nev. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1009, 113 S. Ct. 1656, 123 L. Ed. 2d 275, 1993 U.S. LEXIS 2499 (U.S. 1993).
In cases of both robbery and larceny, the only thing essential with regard to an allegation of ownership seems to be an averment which shows conclusively that the property does not belong to the defendant, and courts have shown a disposition to allow the proof of any sort of interest in or right to the custody of the property to be sufficient proof of ownership. State v. Nelson, 11 Nev. 334, 1876 Nev. LEXIS 41 (Nev. 1876) (decision under former similar statute).
Although defendant highlighted the lack of recovered merchandise, the jury was properly instructed that the State was not required to recover or produce the proceeds of the alleged robbery at trial; further, the surveillance video alone negated any need for the State to present evidence that the convenience store was missing inventory, and a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of robbery and misdemeanor battery beyond a reasonable doubt. Morgan v. State, 134 Nev. 200, 416 P.3d 212, 134 Nev. Adv. Rep. 27, 2018 Nev. LEXIS 31 (Nev. 2018).
Possession.Defendant’s robbery convictions for 2 counts were improper because there was no evidence that the victim’s wife had possession of, or a possessory interest in, the money from her husband’s wallet. The evidence presented by the State did not establish that another victim had possession of, or a possessory interest in, the items taken. Valentine v. State, 454 P.3d 709, 135 Nev. Adv. Rep. 62, 2019 Nev. LEXIS 77 (Nev. 2019).
State failed to introduce any evidence that three witnesses had a possessory interest in the items stolen, but a rational trier of fact could have found the element of possession with respect to the robbery count related to one other witness because he testified that he owned the stolen iPad. Hubbard v. State, 132 Nev. 982, 2016 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 51 (Nev. Ct. App. 2016), superseded, 134 Nev. 450, 422 P.3d 1260, 134 Nev. Adv. Rep. 54, 2018 Nev. LEXIS 56 (Nev. 2018).
Robbery is not confined to a fixed locus, but is frequently spread over considerable distance and varying periods of time. State v. Fouquette, 67 Nev. 505, 221 P.2d 404, 1950 Nev. LEXIS 71 (Nev. 1950), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 932, 71 S. Ct. 799, 95 L. Ed. 1361, 1951 U.S. LEXIS 1875 (U.S. 1951); Norman v. Sheriff, Clark County, 92 Nev. 695, 558 P.2d 541, 1976 Nev. LEXIS 727 (Nev. 1976).
And all matters immediately antecedent to and having a direct causal connection with a robbery are deemed so closely connected with it as to form in reality a part of the occurrence. Norman v. Sheriff, Clark County, 92 Nev. 695, 558 P.2d 541, 1976 Nev. LEXIS 727 (Nev. 1976).
The “perpetration” of the crime of robbery is not completed the moment the stolen property is in the possession of the robber; the escape of the robber with his ill-gotten gains by means of arms is as important to the execution of the robbery as gaining possession of the property. State v. Fouquette, 67 Nev. 505, 221 P.2d 404, 1950 Nev. LEXIS 71 (Nev. 1950), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 932, 71 S. Ct. 799, 95 L. Ed. 1361, 1951 U.S. LEXIS 1875 (U.S. 1951).
Evidence held sufficient to rebut entrapment defense.Evidence was sufficient to sustain a robbery conviction and rebut a claim of entrapment where defendant approached a decoy detective, initiated a conversation, refused to leave when asked, shoved one hand into the detective’s face, and took the detective’s wallet with his other hand. Daniels v. State, 121 Nev. 101, 110 P.3d 477, 2005 Nev. LEXIS 11 (Nev. 2005).
Evidence of substantial bodily harm.Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant’s convictions for sexual assault with substantial bodily harm where bartenders testified that they saw defendant and the victim together the evening of the crime and that they left the bar around the same time, the victim was found near defendant’s apartment after she suffered extensive injuries, including a vaginal laceration, anal bruising, substantial blood loss, and facial bruising, and defendant admitting having sexual relations with the victim. Nolan v. State, 122 Nev. 363, 132 P.3d 564, 122 Nev. Adv. Rep. 33, 2006 Nev. LEXIS 40 (Nev. 2006), app. dismissed, 134 Nev. 989, 417 P.3d 1128, 2018 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 443 (Nev. 2018), app. dismissed, 441 P.3d 88, 2019 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 593 (Nev. 2019).
B. Taking and Intent.
Robbery, a combination of the crime of assault with that of larceny, includes, as does larceny, the element of asportation, and this taking away is a transaction which continues as the perpetrator departs from the place where the property was seized. State v. Fouquette, 67 Nev. 505, 221 P.2d 404, 1950 Nev. LEXIS 71 (Nev. 1950), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 932, 71 S. Ct. 799, 95 L. Ed. 1361, 1951 U.S. LEXIS 1875 (U.S. 1951).
Apprehension at scene not a defense.Where the evidence showed that the defendant attacked and beat a man and then took the man’s wallet and removed all the money, the facts established that a robbery had been committed, despite the defendant’s contention that the alleged crime was merely an attempt because he was apprehended at the scene of the crime and there was no asportation of the victim’s money. Walker v. Sheriff, Clark County, 93 Nev. 298, 565 P.2d 326, 1977 Nev. LEXIS 544 (Nev. 1977).
Robbery is a general intent crime which is meant to include all violent takings from the person or presence of another, and the state does not have to prove that the defendant took the property with a specific intent to deprive the victim permanently of his property. Litteral v. State, 97 Nev. 503, 634 P.2d 1226, 1981 Nev. LEXIS 576 (Nev. 1981), overruled in part, Barton v. State, 117 Nev. 686, 30 P.3d 1103, 117 Nev. Adv. Rep. 56, 2001 Nev. LEXIS 59 (Nev. 2001); Hickson v. State, 98 Nev. 78, 640 P.2d 921, 1982 Nev. LEXIS 392 (Nev. 1982).
Absence of evidence of common scheme or plan.The defendant who scattered the contents of victim’s purse on the sidewalk and took some money and keys while victim was under attack from a third person, was not guilty of robbery in absence of evidence showing that the defendant participated in a common scheme or plan to batter the victim. Skinner v. Sheriff, Clark County, 93 Nev. 340, 566 P.2d 80, 1977 Nev. LEXIS 563 (Nev. 1977).
Where record was barren of any evidence that would have supported an inference that defendant either committed the alleged robbery or participated in a scheme to do so, habeas corpus challenge to robbery charge should have been granted. Archie v. Sheriff, Clark County, 95 Nev. 182, 591 P.2d 245, 1979 Nev. LEXIS 557 (Nev. 1979).
A thing is in “the presence” of a person, as that term is used in subsection 1 of this section, if the thing is so within his reach, inspection, or observation or control, that he could, if not overcome by violence or prevented by fear, retain his possession of it. Robertson v. Sheriff, Clark County, 93 Nev. 300, 565 P.2d 647, 1977 Nev. LEXIS 545 (Nev. 1977).
The phrase “in his presence,” as used in subsection 1 of this section prohibiting the unlawful taking of personal property from the person of another or in his presence, was added to increase the area in which a taking by force or fear constituted the crime of robbery; but the element of possession must still be satisfied. Phillips v. State, 99 Nev. 693, 669 P.2d 706, 1983 Nev. LEXIS 521 (Nev. 1983).
Evidence supporting taking from the presence.Where the record established that the bartender was in the men’s restroom when the robbers entered the bar, and that he heard the robbery in progress but was prevented by fear from retaining possession of the money in the cash register, the money taken from the register was taken from the “presence” of the bartender. Robertson v. Sheriff, Clark County, 93 Nev. 300, 565 P.2d 647, 1977 Nev. LEXIS 545 (Nev. 1977).
Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant’s robbery conviction because a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that when defendant accelerated with the victim on her car, that was part of a continuous transaction that began with her physically taking his watch while he was inside the car. Guidry v. State, 138 Nev. Adv. Rep. 39, 2022 Nev. LEXIS 38 (Nev. June 2, 2022).
Evidence did not support taking from the presence.Evidence was insufficient to convict defendant of robbing a victim of his laptop and wallet because the laptop and wallet remained in the home. Belcher v. State, 464 P.3d 1013, 136 Nev. Adv. Rep. 31, 2020 Nev. LEXIS 31 (Nev. 2020).
The Supreme Court has adopted a broad definition of “presence” with respect to robbery, stating that “[a] thing is in the presence of a person, in respect to robbery, which is so within his reach, inspection, observation or control, that he could, if not overcome by violence or prevented by fear, retain his possession of it.” Guy v. State, 108 Nev. 770, 839 P.2d 578, 108 Nev. Adv. Rep. 126, 1992 Nev. LEXIS 149 (Nev. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1009, 113 S. Ct. 1656, 123 L. Ed. 2d 275, 1993 U.S. LEXIS 2499 (U.S. 1993).
It is not necessary for the state to prove that the person robbed is the absolute owner of the property taken; it is sufficient if the person robbed had a general or special property in, or a right to the possession of, the goods taken. State v. Ah Loi, 5 Nev. 99, 1869 Nev. LEXIS 21 (Nev. 1869) (decision under former similar statute).
Allegation of ownership not essential.In cases of both robbery and larceny, the only thing essential with regard to an allegation of ownership seems to be an averment which shows conclusively that the property does not belong to the defendant, and courts have shown a disposition to allow the proof of any sort of interest in or right to the custody of the property to be sufficient proof of ownership. State v. Nelson, 11 Nev. 334, 1876 Nev. LEXIS 41 (Nev. 1876) (decision under former similar statute).
But showing of possessory interest is.Where the evidence in a robbery prosecution failed to show that a customer, who had entered the jewelry store during the robbery, had any possessory interest in any of the store’s property taken, the defendant’s conviction for robbery of the customer had to be set aside. Phillips v. State, 99 Nev. 693, 669 P.2d 706, 1983 Nev. LEXIS 521 (Nev. 1983).
Possession and presence elements.Witness was prevented by fear from retaining possession of the iPad, and thus a rational trier of fact could have found the possession and presence elements of the robbery. Hubbard v. State, 132 Nev. 982, 2016 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 51 (Nev. Ct. App. 2016), superseded, 134 Nev. 450, 422 P.3d 1260, 134 Nev. Adv. Rep. 54, 2018 Nev. LEXIS 56 (Nev. 2018).
The courageousness or timidity of a robbery victim is irrelevant; it is the acts of the accused which constitute an intimidation. The standard is objective; if the fact be attended with circumstances of terror, such threatening word or gesture as in common experience is likely to create an apprehension of danger and induce a man to part with his property for the safety of his person, it is robbery. Mangerich v. State, 93 Nev. 683, 572 P.2d 542, 1977 Nev. LEXIS 663 (Nev. 1977).
Showing of actual fear not required.Robbery is a felonious and violent taking away from the person of another, goods or money to any value, putting him in fear; it is not necessary to prove actual fear, as the law will presume it. Hayden v. State, 91 Nev. 474, 538 P.2d 583, 1975 Nev. LEXIS 676 (Nev. 1975).
Creation of terrifying situation.Although acts of violence and intimidation preceded the actual taking of the property, and may have been primarily intended for another purpose, it is enough to support a robbery charge if the accused, taking advantage of the terrifying situation he created, fled with the victim’s property. Norman v. Sheriff, Clark County, 92 Nev. 695, 558 P.2d 541, 1976 Nev. LEXIS 727 (Nev. 1976); Sheriff, Clark County v. Jefferson, 98 Nev. 392, 649 P.2d 1365, 1982 Nev. LEXIS 483 (Nev. 1982).
The taking required for robbery may occur after the victim is dead so long as the defendant’s use of force or coercion–for whatever purpose–occurs while the victim was alive and the defendant took advantage of the terrifying situation he created to flee with the victim’s property. Cortinas v. State, 124 Nev. 1013, 195 P.3d 315, 124 Nev. Adv. Rep. 86, 2008 Nev. LEXIS 105 (Nev. 2008), cert. denied, 558 U.S. 956, 130 S. Ct. 416, 175 L. Ed. 2d 285, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 7413 (U.S. 2009), aff’d, 481 P.3d 876, 2021 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 182 (Nev. 2021).
The force necessary under this section may be constructive force. State v. Snyder, 41 Nev. 453, 172 P. 364, 1918 Nev. LEXIS 13 (Nev. 1918).
No additional physical act need be shown.If the defendant, accused of robbery, stood by, and by his presence aided or abetted those who committed the robbery, it was not necessary for any other physical act on his part to have been shown. State v. O’Keefe, 23 Nev. 127, 43 P. 918, 1896 Nev. LEXIS 6 (Nev. 1896) (decision under former similar statute).
Administering poison to the victim with the intention of producing unconsciousness, and while the victim was in that condition taking money from a cash register in the saloon of which the latter had charge, constituted the use of force. State v. Snyder, 41 Nev. 453, 172 P. 364, 1918 Nev. LEXIS 13 (Nev. 1918).
Use of force to prevent knowledge of robbery.Under this section, a taking constitutes robbery even if the taking is fully completed without the victim’s knowledge, if such knowledge is prevented by the use of force or fear. Sheriff, Clark County v. Jefferson, 98 Nev. 392, 649 P.2d 1365, 1982 Nev. LEXIS 483 (Nev. 1982).
Use of force to prevent retaking of property.Where one snatches property from the hand of another and uses force or intimidation to prevent an immediate retaking, this is all one transaction and constitutes robbery; thus, where the defendant grabbed a woman’s purse and immediately thereafter committed a battery on the woman’s male companion, it was irrelevant whether the defendant intended the battery to effectuate his escape or to prevent the purse from being retaken, since the latter purpose was in fact served. Patterson v. Sheriff, Clark County, 93 Nev. 238, 562 P.2d 1134, 1977 Nev. LEXIS 524 (Nev. 1977).
Defendant, who left liquor store with a bottle of brandy in his pants and then struck a store employee with the bottle after the employee had wrestled him to the ground outside the store, used force to retain possession of the stolen property for purposes of subsection (1)(a) of this section. Barkley v. State, 114 Nev. 635, 958 P.2d 1218, 114 Nev. Adv. Rep. 74, 1998 Nev. LEXIS 73 (Nev. 1998).
Force used in escape distinguished.In the sentence, “If used merely as a means of escape, it does not constitute robbery,” contained in subsection 1 of this section, it is not the words “personal property” which are understood or implied following the word “if” and before the word “used,” but the words “such force or fear be”; thus, this section makes a clear distinction between force or fear used in obtaining or retaining the possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking, and force or fear used merely as a means of escape. State v. Sala, 63 Nev. 270, 169 P.2d 524 (Nev. 1946).
Where force is used only to facilitate escape, the use of force must be subsequent to a taking by force or fear, or used to compel acquiescence to the escaping with the property in order to constitute the crime of robbery. Martinez v. State, 114 Nev. 746, 961 P.2d 752, 114 Nev. Adv. Rep. 83, 1998 Nev. LEXIS 84 (Nev. 1998).
Evidence was insufficient to sustain robbery conviction where defendant attempting to steal roast from a supermarket by concealing roast in his pants dropped the roast and waved a knife at security guard while attempting to escape. Martinez v. State, 114 Nev. 746, 961 P.2d 752, 114 Nev. Adv. Rep. 83, 1998 Nev. LEXIS 84 (Nev. 1998).
Robbery compared with extortion.This section requires the actual taking “by force, violence, or fear of injury” of another’s property. Extortion, on the other hand, requires proof of either an indirect or a direct threat. Each offense requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not. The two are separate crimes and separate sentences may be imposed for each violation. Eckert v. Tansy, 936 F.2d 444, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 12206 (9th Cir. Nev. 1991), dismissed, 382 P.3d 499, 2016 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 642 (Nev. 2016).
By means of violence.There was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of robbery where the act of violence was the murder of the property owner and testimony at trial indicated that the defendant was in possession of victim’s truck, T.V., VCR and several personal items such as jewelry which he attempted to pawn or have others pawn for him. Furbay v. State, 116 Nev. 481, 998 P.2d 553, 116 Nev. Adv. Rep. 55, 2000 Nev. LEXIS 66 (Nev. 2000).
Force used during the taking.Where defendant suffered from severe blows to the head, resulting in his death, violence was indeed used during the commission of the taking, and whether the taking occurred before or after the victim succumbed to his injuries was not important. Mulder v. State, 116 Nev. 1, 992 P.2d 845, 116 Nev. Adv. Rep. 1, 2000 Nev. LEXIS 1 (Nev.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 843, 121 S. Ct. 110, 148 L. Ed. 2d 67, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 5432 (U.S. 2000).
A robbery accusation can be more than just a sentencing, it’s also a lifelong stigma. All potential employers, landlords, or anyone who wishes to access public records will know of the conviction. Don’t let your future rest on anything but an experienced Las Vegas robbery attorney. Shield yourself from robbery charges in Nevada by getting in touch with the Spartacus Law Firm for free, confidential consultations today!
