Case Name: DAVID E. RIGGINS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1993-09-29
Citations: 109 Nev. 966
Docket Number: No. 19873
Parties: DAVID E. RIGGINS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 109
Pages: 966–975

Head Matter:
DAVID E. RIGGINS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
No. 19873
September 29, 1993
860 P.2d 705
Mace J. Yampolsky, Las Vegas, for Appellant.
Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, Carson City; Rex Bell, District Attorney, James Tufteland, Chief Deputy District Attorney, and Bill A. Berrett, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION
Per Curiam:
This court previously issued an opinion in this matter affirming appellant David E. Riggins' convictions of first degree murder with use of a deadly weapon, robbery with use of a deadly weapon and sentence of death. Riggins v. State, 107 Nev. 178, 808 P.2d 535 (1991) (Rose, J., concurring; Springer, J., dissenting). Riggins' petition for a writ of certiorari was therefore granted by the Supreme Court of the United States. Riggins v. Nevada, _ U.S. _, 112 S.Ct. 49 (1991).
On May 18, 1992, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion reversing this court's judgment and remanding this matter for further proceedings. Riggins v. Nevada, _ U.S. _, 112 S.Ct. 1810 (Kennedy, J., concurring; Thomas and Scalia, JJ., dissenting). In light of that opinion, we hereby vacate Riggins' judgment of conviction and sentence of death, and we remand this matter to the district court for a new trial. The retrial of this matter shall be conducted without the involuntary administration to appellant of antipsychotic medications of any type, unless the district court shall find, following the cessation of all such medications, that the administration of antipsychotic medication is medically appropriate and essential, considering less intrusive alternatives, to ensure the safety of appellant or the safety of others, or that the administration of antipsychotic medication is medically appropriate and necessary in order to maintain Riggins' competence to stand trial, and that Riggins' competence cannot be maintained through the use of less intrusive means. See Riggins, _ U.S. at _, 112 S.Ct. at 1815.
The Honorable Miriam Shearing, Justice, did not participate in the decision of this matter.