Opinion ID: 1119440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Witter's motion to argue last.

Text: Witter contends that NRS 200.030(4) [5] shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that mitigating circumstances outweigh aggravating circumstances. Witter cites Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956), and argues that the district court should have allowed him to argue last during closing arguments. We disagree. First, we read NRS 200.030(4) as stating that the death penalty is an available punishment only if the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one aggravating circumstance exists, and that the aggravating circumstance or circumstances outweigh the mitigating evidence offered by the defendant. The statute does not shift the burden of proof to the defendant. Second, unless the case is submitted to the jury by one or both sides without argument, NRS 175.141 [6] mandates that the district attorney, or other counsel for the state, open and conclude argument. Under NRS 175.141, the district court does not have the authority to grant Witter's request. Moreover, such a concession would unfairly disadvantage the prosecution. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err when it denied Witter's request to argue last during the penalty phase.