The case turned on whether the defendant's prior removal order was valid, which turned on whether he had a prior conviction for an aggravated felony, which turned on whether battery committed with the use of a deadly weapon under Nevada Revised Statute § 200.481(2)(e)(1) is categorically a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16(a).
The Court held it was. For most, this is all you need to know.
But for those interested in categorical analysis generally, this case has an unusual twist. Nevada has a statute defining "deadly weapon" in the sentencing context. That statute is overbroad, in that it includes items that are not particularly dangerous and thus their use would not satisfy Johnson's physical force requirement.
The Ninth Circuit acknowledges the overbreadth in the statutory definition, but determines it is not controlling. Instead, it looks to the more limited Nevada common law definition, and finds it applies outside of the sentencing context, to the actual crime of conviction.
The Ninth Circuit acknowledges the overbreadth in the statutory definition, but determines it is not controlling. Instead, it looks to the more limited Nevada common law definition, and finds it applies outside of the sentencing context, to the actual crime of conviction.
