concluding that mutilation aggravating circumstance was proved where defendant dug into victim's torso/abdomen with knife and then plunged knife into it because those actions went beyond the act of killing and caused serious abuse that altered radically essential part of body
How later courts described this case
- concluding that mutilation aggravating circumstance was proved where defendant dug into victim's torso/abdomen with knife and then plunged knife into it because those actions went beyond the act of killing and caused serious abuse that altered radically essential part of body
- recognizing that bifurcation of a capital penalty hearing alleviates concerns over the Confrontation Clause and Crawford
- recognizing that the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment requires a sentencing scheme that "genuinely narrow[s] the class of person eligible for the death penalty" (internal quotation omitted)
- holding that it is "impermissible under the United States and Nevada Constitutions to base an aggravating circumstance in a capital prosecution on the felony upon which a felony murder is predicated"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Becker, J.,
concurring in result only:
I agree with the decision of the court to affirm McConnell’s conviction. I also agree that the court needs to consider the valid *1074 ity of Nevada’s death penalty scheme in light of Lowenfield v. Phelps, 1 the changes in Nevada’s statutes that have occurred since our decision in Petrocelli v. State, 2 and recent reconsideration of death penalty case law by the United States Supreme Court. 3 However, in light of the sixteen-year period that has passed since Lowenfield, I would still have set this matter for oral argument, despite the State’s failure to address Lowenfield, and I also believe the court should have requested amicus briefing. For these reasons I concur only in the result.
484 U.S. 231 (1988).
101 Nev. 46 , 692 P.2d 503 (1985), holding modified on other grounds by Sonner v. State, 114 Nev. 321, 327 , 955 P.2d 673 , 677 (1998).
See Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).