Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Moore v. State
Citations: 692 P.2d 1278; 100 Nev. 698; 1984 Nev. LEXIS 461Docket: 15230
Court: Nevada Supreme Court; December 17, 1984; Nevada; State Supreme Court
Ronald Moore appealed his conviction for cheating at gambling (NRS 465.083) and altering the outcome of a gambling game (NRS 465.070(1)). The jury found that he used a technique to remove a card from a blackjack game and substitute it to improve his hand. The state's case included testimony from a casino surveillance employee, a gaming control board agent, and a video of Moore's actions. Moore argued that being convicted for both offenses constituted unconstitutional double punishment, asserting that NRS 465.083 is a lesser included offense of NRS 465.070(1). The court agreed, applying the Blockburger test, which determines whether one offense is included in another based on whether each statute requires proof of a unique fact. It concluded that both statutes address the alteration of a game's outcome, with NRS 465.070(1) being more specific as it pertains to alterations made after the outcome is confirmed but before it is revealed. Since one cannot violate NRS 465.070(1) without also violating NRS 465.083, the court found that Moore could only be convicted of one offense. Consequently, the conviction for cheating at gambling (NRS 465.083) was reversed, while the judgment for altering the outcome of a game (NRS 465.070(1)) was affirmed. The court did not need to examine the specifics of the case further, nor did it find merit in Moore’s argument regarding insufficient evidence for the latter conviction, as circumstantial evidence was deemed adequate for sustaining the conviction.