Court Opinion

ID: 9542658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:37:02.818723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:34.740808
License: Public Domain

Gunderson, C. J., and Batjer, J.,
concurring:
We assume that the only issue the majority have elected to decide in this case is the issue they have elected to discuss.
We therefore agree with what we understand to be the majority’s ultimate conclusion: that NRS 200.030(1) (e), as originally adopted, should be construed only as encompassing “[kjilling more than one person as the result of a common [single] plan, scheme or design [to kill].” However, to arrive at this conclusion, we find it necessary only to notice that the foregoing seems the strictest available construction, and to consider that penal statutes must be strictly construed. Sheriff v. Hanks, 91 Nev. 57, 530 P.2d 1191 (1975); Sardis v. District Court, 85 Nev. 585, 460 P.2d 163 (1969).
Since we think that, strictly construed, the words employed by the legislature are quite intelligible, we have no difficulty agreeing that NRS 200.030(1) (e) is not unconstitutionally vague. We do so, however, without feeling constrained to refer to many of the cases and principles the majority apparently feel are significant to a determination of that issue.