Like the majority of states, Nevada is a “stand your ground” state. You have no duty to retreat from threats such as assault or battery, even if you have the opportunity to flee. In fact, you can fight back in self-defense (or defense of others) as long as you use reasonable and proportional physical force.
Can I use lethal force?
When you are “standing your ground” in Nevada, you can resort to lethal force only if the following four conditions are true:
- you reasonably fear you or someone else is facing immediate death or serious bodily harm,
- you did not start the conflict,
- you are not doing anything illegal, and
- you are not trespassing.1
In practice, it is generally advisable to run away to safety if you can rather than face down a potentially lethal threat. In my experience, over-zealous prosecutors are quick to lay blame and charge people who lawfully stood their ground.
What is “imperfect” self-defense?
An imperfect self-defense case is when you genuinely believe you were justified in fighting back against an aggressor, but your case fails the “reasonable person” standard. Therefore, imperfect self-defense does not serve as a defense to criminal charges. 3
For example, “fighting words” may be upsetting but do not by themselves pose an immediate threat of death. In Nevada, merely having a “bare fear” of being hurt is not enough to justify killing in self-defense.
Although imperfect self-defense cannot get murder charges dismissed, I have successfully used it to persuade a judge to impose laxer penalties or even reduce a murder charge to manslaughter.
Stand Your Ground v. The Castle Doctrine
Nevada’s Castle Doctrine allows you to kill people intruding into your home or vehicle if you reasonably believe they have violent intentions. Unlike the “stand your ground” doctrine, the Castle Doctrine does not require you to wait until the moment you are facing immediate death or severe injury to hit back with deadly force.
Therefore, the Castle Doctrine has a lower bar to kill than the “stand your ground” doctrine. Just by being inside a home or vehicle, you are allowed to kill as soon as someone is wrongfully trying to enter the premises.4
You can kill in self-defense if you reasonably believe you are about to be killed or seriously hurt.
Defense of Property
Nevada law allows you to use reasonable and proportional force to stop or prevent vandals and trespassers from going on or harming your property. However, this force must be non-lethal unless you reasonably believe the intruders pose an imminent threat of violence.5
Guns for Self-Defense
Since Nevada is an open carry state, you can carry handguns without a permit as long as:
- you are not prohibited from possessing firearms, and
- the handgun is in plain view.
In order to carry a concealed handgun, you need a current and valid CCW permit.6
You may not bring guns or knives to schools or childcare facilities.7 Plus, it is a misdemeanor to brandish guns or knives in front of two more people: Penalties include up to six months in jail and/or $1,000.8
Proving Self-Defense
In Nevada, you have the initial burden to claim that you acted in lawful self-defense. Then once you make this claim, prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your actions were not justified. 9
Evidence I frequently rely on in self-defense cases includes:
- eyewitnesses,
- medical testimony, and
- video surveillance footage.
There is usually little physical evidence in battery domestic violence cases: It is your word against your accuser’s. However, I can still aggressively cross-examine the state’s witnesses in an effort to impeach their credibility and weaken the allegations against you.
Additional Reading
For more in-depth information, refer to these scholarly articles:
- No Ground on Which to Stand: Revise Stand Your Ground Laws So Survivors of Domestic Violence Are No Longer Incarcerated for Defending Their Lives – Berkeley Journal of Gender Law & Justice.
- No Retreat: The Impact of Stand Your Ground Laws on Violent Crime – Criminal Justice Review.
- Shoot to Kill: A Critical Look at Stand Your Ground Laws – University of Miami Law Review.
- From Threat to Victim: Why Stand Your Ground Laws Are Inherently Prejudiced and Do Nother to Further Justice – Hastings Race and Policy Law Journal.
- The Distraction That Is Stand Your Ground – Florida International University Law Review.
Legal References:
- NRS 200.120 “Justifiable homicide” defined; no duty to retreat under certain circumstances.
1. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of an occupied habitation, an occupied motor vehicle or a person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors to commit a crime of violence, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the occupied habitation or occupied motor vehicle, of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.
2. A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person: (a) Is not the original aggressor; (b) Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and (c) Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.
3. As used in this section: (a) “Crime of violence” means any felony for which there is a substantial risk that force or violence may be used against the person or property of another in the commission of the felony. (b) “Motor vehicle” means every vehicle which is self-propelled.
Culverson v. State, (1990) 106 Nev. 484, 797 P.2d 238 (“[A] person, who is not the original aggressor, has no duty to retreat before using deadly force, if a reasonable person in the position of the non-aggressor would believe that his assailant is about to kill him or cause him serious bodily harm.”). Earl v. State, (1995) 111 Nev. 1304, 904 P.2d 1029 (“This court has interpreted the “no duty to retreat” rule to mean that the person must reasonably believe he is about to be attacked with deadly force.”). Davis v. State, (Nev. 2014) 321 P.3d 867, 130 Nev. Adv. Rep. 16 (“Death does not have to be the result for self-defense to be applicable”). - Same.
- See Hill v. State, (1982) 98 Nev. 295.
- See note 1.
- Walker v. Burkham (Nev. 1950) 222 P.2d 205 (“The actor is not privileged to use any means of defending his land or chattels from intrusion which are intended or likely to cause bodily harm or confinement in excess of that which the actor correctly or reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s intrusion…One in possession of land or chattels may intentionally put another in such an apprehension of contact not threatening serious harm or death, as, but for the privilege, would be actionable, even though the harm which he causes the other to apprehend is in excess of that which he is privileged to apply. But he may not make such a threat if he knows or should know that the circumstances are such that the other, in his effort to avoid the threatened harm, may probably sustain harm greater than the actor is privileged intentionally to inflict upon him.“).
- NRS 202.350.
- NRS 202.265.
- NRS 202.320.
- NRS 202.350.
