Opinion ID: 2623278
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The aggravating circumstance of mutilation

Text: Vanisi claims that the aggravating circumstance of mutilation does not apply in this case. We reject this claim. NRS 200.033(8) provides for an aggravating circumstance where [t]he murder involved torture or the mutilation of the victim. Here, the State proceeded on a theory of mutilation. This court has approved a jury instruction that defines mutilate as to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of the body or to cut off or alter radically so as to make imperfect. [20] Mutilation requires an act beyond the act of killing itself. [21] There is compelling evidence establishing mutilation here. Dr. Clark, who performed the autopsy, testified to the extensive and severe injury inflicted on Sullivan's body. Clark identified at least twenty separate and distinct impacts to Sullivan's face and head. Sullivan had many, many lacerations and some of Sullivan's teeth were actually found outside of the body. Clark testified that the weapon used in the offense was wielded in different fashions, that some of the injuries are coming this direction, some are coming this direction, some are coming towards the back, and other injuries are made with a sharp portion of the blade. Clark also found that some injuries to Sullivan's chin and jaw and to the back of his head were more consistent with broad flat impact, possibly stomping. Sullivan sustained skull fractures, fractures to virtually all of the facial bones, and damage to the brain. This physical evidence is consistent with the testimony of one of Vanisi's relatives concerning Vanisi's description of the murder. According to this account, even after Sullivan was knocked out by Vanisi's initial assault, Vanisi proceeded to kick Sullivan over and over, stomping on Sullivan's head. Given the weight of this evidence, we conclude that Vanisi's assault went well beyond the act of killing itself and resulted in mutilation of the victim's body. [22] Although Vanisi does not specifically challenge the jury instruction on appeal, we note that it included some language no longer mandated by the statutory aggravating circumstance. The jury was instructed: The term `mutilate' means to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of the body, or to cut off or alter radically so as to make imperfect, or other serious and depraved physical abuse beyond the act of killing itself. [23] This instruction is largely the same as the one we have approved. However, the emphasized language appears to come from an instruction based on a former version of NRS 200.033(8), which referred to depravity of mind as well as torture and mutilation. [24] In 1995, the Legislature amended the statute to delete depravity of mind. [25] Use of the instruction here was not prejudicial since the State did not argue depravity of mind and there was compelling evidence of mutilation, as discussed above. We take this opportunity, however, to clarify that language referring to other serious and depraved physical abuse should no longer be included in a definition of mutilation.