Opinion ID: 216450
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Partial Verdicts and Nevada's Capital-Sentencing Regime

Text: The general principles discussed supra undercut Harrison's argument that a defendant can make an ex post request to bifurcate a penalty-phase proceeding in order to receive a partial verdict of acquittal on the death penalty. Nevada statutes establish a three-step procedure for imposing the death penalty. First, the jury must unanimously find that an aggravating factor is present beyond a reasonable doubt, Nev.Rev.Stat. § 175.554(3); Hollaway v. State, 116 Nev. 732, 6 P.3d 987, 996 (2000) (en banc); that finding is considered a factual determination under Nevada law, Johnson v. State, 118 Nev. 787, 59 P.3d 450, 460 (2002) (en banc) (per curiam). Second, each juror must individually conclude that the mitigating factors do not outweigh the aggravating factors, Nev.Rev.Stat. § 175.554(3); Hollaway, 6 P.3d at 996; that conclusion is in part a factual determination and in part discretionary weighing under Nevada law, Johnson I, 59 P.3d at 460. Third, the jury must unanimously decide to impose the death penalty rather than life without the possibility of parole, life with the possibility of parole, or a fixed sentence with the possibility of parole, Nev. Rev.Stat. § 200.030(4); Hollaway, 6 P.3d at 996; this is a moral decision that is not susceptible to proof, McConnell v. State ( McConnell II ), ___ Nev. ___, 212 P.3d 307, 315 (2009) (en banc) (per curiam). If the jury is unable to agree upon a sentence, the trial court may either sentence the defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or impanel a new jury to determine the sentence. Nev. Rev.Stat. § 175.556(1). The Nevada Supreme Court has explained that although juries are given special verdict forms to guide their analysis in these unbifurcated penalty-phase proceedings, these forms are not legally significant. See Gallego v. State, 117 Nev. 348, 23 P.3d 227, 239-40 (2001) (en banc). Instead, the only conclusion of any significance is the jury's final sentencing decision. [8] See id. at 240 (holding that a verdict form specifying [the jury's mitigation] findings is not required); see also Nev. Rev.Stat. § 175.554(4). Contrary to Judge Reinhardt's suggestion in his separate dissent, the purpose of the penalty-phase proceeding under Nevada law is not simply to decide whether the defendant is legally eligible for a capital sentence and whether such a sentence should be imposed. See Reinhardt Dissent at 915-16. Rather, the purpose of the penalty-phase proceeding is to impose a final sentence, whether it be life without the possibility of parole, life with the possibility of parole, a fixed term of years, or, in some cases, the death penalty. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 200.030(4). In other words, unless the penalty-phase proceeding is bifurcated, the only jury determination of any significanceand the only one that is sufficiently final to constitute a verdict in the ordinary senseis the jury's decision regarding which sentence to impose. In light of the structure of Nevada's capital-sentencing scheme, and the underlying principles discussed supra, Harrison was not automatically entitled under Nevada law to poll the deadlocked jury on the status of its deliberations in his unbifurcated capital-sentencing proceeding. See Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 78 P.3d 890, 906 (2003) (en banc) (per curiam) (holding that trial court [i]s not required to poll the jurors regarding possible acquittal on death penalty). Although the jury may have reached preliminary conclusions at any of the three stages of its capital-sentencing inquiryfirst, with respect to the presence or absence of aggravating circumstances, second, with respect to the balancing of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and third, with respect to the final moral decision to impose a particular sentenceNevada law does not include any procedural mechanism in which the jury's preliminary determinations can be embodied in a valid final verdict in an unbifurcated penalty-phase proceeding such as Harrison's. Absent the jury's full deliberation and final decision regarding the defendant's sentence, a Nevada penalty-phase jury has not produced a valid and final judgment that constitutes a partial acquittal. See Yeager, 129 S.Ct. at 2367. [9]