Opinion ID: 1375439
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Constitutionality of the mutilation aggravating factor

Text: Jason argues that the mutilation aggravating circumstance in NRS 200.033(8) is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. He contends every murder involves mutilation under the definition that the district court gave to the jury. [3] In Deutscher v. State, 95 Nev. 669, 677, 601 P.2d 407, 412 (1979), we held the mutilation aggravating factor is not vague because this court found the legislative enactment [NRS 200.033(8) ] to be plain and intelligible. See also Rogers v. State, 101 Nev. 457, 467, 705 P.2d 664, 671 (1985). We further held that since the district court defined the term mutilate for the jury, the aggravator passed constitutional muster. Deutscher, 95 Nev. at 677, 601 P.2d at 412. Furthermore, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have already specifically upheld as constitutional the same mutilation instruction, defining mutilation, used in Jason's case. Deutscher v. Whitley, 884 F.2d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir.1989); Deutscher v. Whitley, 682 F.Supp. 1098, 1106 (D.Nev.1988). Accordingly, we conclude that the instructions for the mutilation aggravator were not constitutionally infirm.