Opinion ID: 1452469
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Claims previously rejected

Text: The district court denied appellants' motion to exclude evidence of their co-defendants' sentences from the third penalty hearing. The prosecutor informed the jury of the sentences received by the four other individuals involved in the murders. In closing argument, the prosecutor argued that in view of the other four individuals' involvement in the crimes and their sentences, appellants deserved the death penalty. Appellants contend that this evidence and argument was improper, but this court has already rejected this contention, concluding that it was proper and helpful for the jury to consider the punishments imposed on the co-defendants. Flanagan II, 107 Nev. at 248, 810 P.2d at 762. Under the doctrine of the law of the case, we decline to revisit this issue. Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16, 535 P.2d 797, 799 (1975). Rejecting an alternative instruction offered by appellants, the district court instructed the jury: A verdict may never be influenced by sympathy, prejudice or public opinion. The jury was also instructed that murder of the first degree could be mitigated by three enumerated circumstances and [a]ny other mitigating circumstances. Appellants argue that precluding the jury from considering sympathy violated the constitutional requirement that a jury consider all mitigating evidence. This court has already rejected appellants' argument and upheld the antisympathy instruction, holding that because the penalty jury was properly instructed to consider any mitigating circumstances, the district court did not err in instructing the jury that it should not be influenced by sympathy, prejudice or public opinion. Flanagan II, 107 Nev. at 248, 810 P.2d at 762. Again, under the doctrine of the law of the case, we decline to revisit this issue. Hall, 91 Nev. at 315-16, 535 P.2d at 799.