Anderson v. State

614 P.2d 540, 96 Nev. 633, 1980 Nev. LEXIS 670

Opinions

OPINION

By the'Court,

Manoukian, J.:

Appellant was convicted of robbery with use of a deadly weapon. See NRS 200.380, 193.165. The sole contention on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to support the weapons enhancement.

At trial appellant admitted using a blank gun in the commission of the robbery. In Allen v. State, 96 Nev. 334, 609 P.2d 321 (1980), we held that use of an inoperable firearm in the commission of a crime would support the enhanced penalty. In so deciding, we stated: “A firearm is dangerous, not only because it can inflict deadly harm, but because its use may provoke a deadly reaction from the victim or from bystanders'.” Id. at 336, 609 P.2d at 322. We perceive no substantial distinction between the inoperable firearm in Allen and the blank gun used in the instant case.

Affirmed.

Mowbray, C. J., and Thompson and Batjer, JJ., concur.