Court Opinion

ID: 9784026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:35:52.857455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:47.147207
License: Public Domain

Rose, C. J.,
with whom Maupin and Douglas, JJ., agree, concurring:
For the reasons stated in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Summers v. State,11 believe that capital defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to confront the declarants of testimonial hearsay statements admitted throughout an unbifurcated capital penalty hearing. Where the hearing is bifurcated into death-eligibility and selection phases, however, I believe that the right to confrontation extends only to evidence admitted during the eligibility phase. Here, because the evidence at issue in Johnson’s case — inmate disciplinary reports — was admitted during the selection phase only, I concur in the majority’s conclusion that it was not error under the Confrontation Clause and Crawford v. Washington2 to admit the reports into evidence.

 122 Nev. 1326, 148 P.3d 778 (2006).

 541 U.S. 36 (2004).