Opinion ID: 1195279
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Election of theories by the State

Text: Moore first contends that the district court erroneously denied his request to compel the State to elect a theory of prosecution, i.e., between premeditated murder and felony-murder. See NRS 200.030(1)(a) and (b). [1] In Holmes v. State, 114 Nev. 1357, 1363-64, 972 P.2d 337, 342 (1998), we concluded that the commission of a felony and premeditation are merely alternative means under NRS 200.030 of establishing the single mens rea element of first-degree murder, rather than constituting independent elements of the crime. See Doleman v. State, 107 Nev. 409, 417, 812 P.2d 1287, 1292 (1991) (jury instructed on various theories of first-degree murder including premeditation and felony-murder); Nevius v. State, 101 Nev. 238, 243, 699 P.2d 1053, 1060 (1985) (jury instructed on both premeditation/deliberation and felony-murder theories of liability for first-degree murder). Further, a jury need not even reach unanimity with respect to either theory. See Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 631, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991), cited with approval in Holmes. Thus, there is no requirement that the State elect a single theory of prosecution for murder. We conclude that Moore's motion was properly denied and hold that the State is permitted to proceed under alternative theories of premeditation/deliberation and felony-murder to prove the elements of first-degree murder.