Under NRS 60-6,196, does the statute state that a person 'shall' or 'may' be guilty?

Under NRS 60-6,196, does the statute state that a person 'shall' or 'may' be guilty?

• A. They shall be guilty of a crime.
• B. They may be guilty of a crime.
• C. They are not guilty regardless of offense.
• D. The statute does not address guilt.

Answer: (A)

The main idea is interpreting how statutory language determines liability. In this statute, the use of the word "shall" creates a mandatory liability: if a person commits the offense described, they are to be guilty of the crime. This phrasing signals that guilt follows from proof of the offense’s elements, not that guilt is optional or discretionary. It reflects the legislature’s intent to impose criminal liability when the specified conduct occurs, while still allowing for defenses or other due-process protections that could affect the outcome in a given case. The other phrasings would conflict with that mandate—"may be guilty" would suggest optional liability, "not guilty regardless of offense" contradicts the explicit wording, and "the statute does not address guilt" ignores the clear statement about guilt.

The main idea is interpreting how statutory language determines liability. In this statute, the use of the word "shall" creates a mandatory liability: if a person commits the offense described, they are to be guilty of the crime. This phrasing signals that guilt follows from proof of the offense’s elements, not that guilt is optional or discretionary. It reflects the legislature’s intent to impose criminal liability when the specified conduct occurs, while still allowing for defenses or other due-process protections that could affect the outcome in a given case. The other phrasings would conflict with that mandate—"may be guilty" would suggest optional liability, "not guilty regardless of offense" contradicts the explicit wording, and "the statute does not address guilt" ignores the clear statement about guilt.