Opinion ID: 1234215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Murder for Pecuniary Gain as an Aggravating Circumstance.

Text: The third and final aggravating circumstance found by the three judge panel was that the appellants committed the murder for the purpose of receiving money. Appellants claim that the panel erred by finding that robbery and murder for pecuniary gain are two separate aggravating circumstances because murder for pecuniary gain as found in NRS 200.033(6) is limited to the hired gun situation. [9] According to the testimony of Lani, appellants came to the motel room he shared with Stites to discuss the killing of a drug dealer. Wilson told Lani and Stites that they needed some help to kill Hoff and offered to pay them $3,500 for their participation. Pursuant to the agreement, they were given $3,500 for stabbing Hoff. Under these circumstances, we find that the killing of Hoff was in the nature of a hired gun situation; therefore, we decline to consider the issue of whether the statute is limited solely to contract-type killings. The other issues raised by appellants have been considered and we find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of conviction, together with the sentences of death. MOWBRAY and STEFFEN, JJ., concur.