Court Opinion

ID: 9795517
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:30:31.444116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:30:11.822773
License: Public Domain

Becker, J.,
concurring in result only:
I agree with the decision of the court to affirm McConnell’s conviction. I also agree that the court needs to consider the valid*1074ity of Nevada’s death penalty scheme in light of Lowenfield v. Phelps,1 the changes in Nevada’s statutes that have occurred since our decision in Petrocelli v. State,2 and recent reconsideration of death penalty case law by the United States Supreme Court.3 However, in light of the sixteen-year period that has passed since Lowenfield, I would still have set this matter for oral argument, despite the State’s failure to address Lowenfield, and I also believe the court should have requested amicus briefing. For these reasons I concur only in the result.

 484 U.S. 231 (1988).

 101 Nev. 46, 692 P.2d 503 (1985), holding modified on other grounds by Sonner v. State, 114 Nev. 321, 327, 955 P.2d 673 , 677 (1998).

See Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).