Case Name: RANDY ANDERSON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1980-07-29
Citations: 96 Nev. 633
Docket Number: No. 11025
Parties: RANDY ANDERSON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
Judges: Gunderson, J., dissented.
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 633–634

Head Matter:
RANDY ANDERSON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
No. 11025
July 29, 1980
614 P.2d 540
Gunderson, J., dissented.
Morgan D. Harris, Public Defender, and H. Leon Simon, Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.
Richard H. Bryan, Attorney General, Carson City; Robert J. Miller, District Attorney, and Ira H. Hecht, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

Opinion:
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.