Opinion ID: 1155448
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Guilt Phase Instruction on What Constitutes Evidence of Willfulness, Premeditation and Deliberation

Text: Powell takes exception to Jury Instruction No. 10, arguing that it constituted an impermissible comment on the evidence by the court because it instructed the jury what evidence it could consider to show willfulness and deliberateness. The instruction read: The nature and extent of the injuries, coupled with repeated blows, may constitute evidence of willfulness, premeditation and deliberation. This court has sanctioned a finding of premeditation and deliberation inferred from the circumstances of the killing in several cases. See e.g., DePasquale v. State, 106 Nev. 843, 803 P.2d 218 (1990); Hern v. State, 97 Nev. 529, 635 P.2d 278 (1981); Curtis v. State, 93 Nev. 504, 568 P.2d 583 (1977). In fact, in DePasquale, this court used language nearly identical to the instruction about which Powell complains. There, we stated that [p]remeditation and deliberation can be inferred from the nature and extent of the injuries, coupled with repeated blows. DePasquale, 106 Nev. at 848, 803 P.2d at 221. The jury instruction did not, therefore, constitute an impermissible comment on the evidence.