# McConnell v. State

> Nevada Supreme Court · December 29, 2004 · 120 Nev. 1043

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795517

## Case

- **Full name:** ROBERT LEE McCONNELL, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
- **Court:** Nevada Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 29, 2004
- **Citations:** 120 Nev. 1043; 120 Nev. Adv. Rep. 105; 102 P.3d 606; 2004 Nev. LEXIS 138
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Becker
- **Judges:** Becker
- **Cited by:** 81 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795517

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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"
- holding that it is unconstitutional to base aggravating circumstance in capital prosecution on felony that was used to obtain first-degree murder conviction

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9795517. Public record. Not legal advice.