Opinion ID: 1375439
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Sufficiency of the evidence in the penalty phase

Text: Jason alleges that the State's evidence did not prove mutilation beyond a reasonable doubt. Mutilation requires an act beyond the act of killing itself. Jason states that since the cause of death was multiple blunt trauma, he did no act beyond that; therefore, no mutilation could exist. He further contends that if this court rules that multiple blows is sufficient to constitute mutilation, the consequences will be great. Jason alleges the ramifications of upholding his death sentence will be that a mutilation aggravator can be created for 1. Any case where there is more than one gunshot wound; 2. Any case where there is more than one stab wound; 3. Any blunt trauma case where there is more than the number of blows sufficient to cause death (irrespective of the knowledge, belief or intent of the perpetrator); and 4. Any case where there is injury to any part of the body other than the injury that caused death, i.e., make a limb imperfect. We conclude that Jason exaggerates the State's position and the consequences of upholding Jason's sentence. This is not a case where there was simply more than one blow to the head. This case involves well over fifteen severe blows. Therefore, although Dr. Jordan could not ascertain exactly which blow killed Chantelle, he testified that any one of those blows could have caused Chantelle's death. Accordingly, due to the severity of the beating in its entirety, we hold that a jury could conclude that Jason committed acts beyond the killing itself. Moreover, in Parker v. State, 109 Nev. 383, 394-95, 849 P.2d 1062, 1069-70 (1993), we affirmed a death sentence, holding that enough evidence existed for the jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the victim was mutilated. In Parker, the victim's brain and skull were crushed and destroyed when the defendant repeatedly hit the victim's head with a rock. The medical examiner testified to the extensive damage to the victim's head and that her brain was an essential part of [the victim's] body. We noted that even after the victim lost consciousness, the defendant continued to strike her with the rock, splattering blood on the walls, stove and countertops of the kitchen. Id. Likewise, Dr. Jordan testified that Chantelle's brain was an essential part of her body, that her brain was completely destroyed, and that in his opinion this was extensive mutilation and overkill. There was also evidence that even after Chantelle lost consciousness, Jason continued to hit her in the head with the bat. In addition, blood was splattered on the kitchen ceiling, walls, floor, cupboards, and door; one drop even made its way into the next room. Jason contends Parker is distinguishable because the Parker victim's body was found with a knife plunged into her chest, ligatures around her neck, and evidence of sexual penetration after death. Jason argues these extra facts, taken together, constituted the mutilation in Parker. He contends since these extra facts are not present here, no mutilation was proven. However, we determined in Parker that these extra facts contributed to the depravity of mind aspect of the aggravator and not to the mutilation portion of the aggravator. Parker, 109 Nev. at 394-95, 849 P.2d at 1069-70. We stated that [t]he evidence presented at trial supports the jury's finding of mutilation, in that Parker `permanently destroy[ed]' an essential part of [the victim's] body, her brain. Id. at 394, 849 P.2d at 1069 (emphasis added). We then explained the extent of damage to the victim's brain inflicted by the beating. As an additional factor, but not as a determining one, we noted the existence of the knife. Subsequently, as a separate issue, we discussed the other facts in the context of depravity of mind. Id. at 395, 849 P.2d at 1070. Therefore, according to Parker, multiple blunt trauma which destroys the brain is sufficient for mutilation. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence presented in Jason's case was sufficient for the jury to find mutilation based on the overkill nature of the baseball bat beating. In cases in which the death penalty is imposed, this court is also statutorily required to consider whether the death sentence was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any arbitrary factor and whether the sentence of death is excessive considering both the crime and the defendant. NRS 177.055(2). We conclude that the death sentence was not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any arbitrary factor, nor was it excessive in this case considering the senseless and violent nature of the crime and the defendant.