9 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1990–1998 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nevada courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Robins v. Stategreen2 sentences1998In Deutscher v. Whitley, 884 F.2d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir.1989), vacated on other grounds, 500 U.S. 901 , 111 S.Ct. 1678 , 114 L.Ed.2d 73 (1991), the Ninth Circuit held that a jury instruction on depravity of mind based on NRS 200.033(8) did not satisfy the Godfrey requirements. [2] Accordingly, in Robins v. State, 106 Nev. 611, 629 , 798 P.2d 558, 570 (1990), we adopted a narrow construction, "requiring torture, mutilation or other serious and depraved physical abuse beyond the act of killing itself, as a qualifying requirement to an aggravating circumstance based in part upon depravity of mind." 1998In Deutscher v. Whitley, 884 F.2d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir.1989), vacated on other grounds, 500 U.S. 901 , 111 S.Ct. 1678 , 114 L.Ed.2d 73 (1991), the Ninth Circuit held that a jury instruction on depravity of mind based on NRS 200.033(8) did not satisfy the Godfrey requirements. [2] Accordingly, in Robins v. State, 106 Nev. 611, 629 , 798 P.2d 558, 570 (1990), we adopted a narrow construction, "requiring torture, mutilation or other serious and depraved physical abuse beyond the act of killing itself, as a qualifying requirement to an aggravating circumstance based in part upon depravity of mind." | 6 | 9 |
Amer v. Department of Social Servicesgreen2 sentences1996See, e.g., Herzog v. State, 439 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1983) (the prevention of lawful arrest aggravator "may be applicable when the fact finder determines that the dominant motive of the murder was for the elimination of witnesses"). [24] Prior to a 1995 amendment, NRS 200.033(8) provided that first-degree murder may be aggravated where "[t]he murder involved torture, depravity of mind or the mutilation of the victim." To ensure that this aggravator is applied in a constitutional manner, this court held that NRS 200.033(8) requires "torture, mutilation or other serious and depraved physical abuse b 1993This court has held that there must be a showing of “torture, mutilation or other serious and depraved physical abuse beyond the act of killing itself, as a qualifying requirement to an aggravating circumstance based in part upon depravity of mind.” Robbins v. State, 106 Nev. 611 , 798 P.2d 558 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1036 , 111 S.Ct. 1608 (1991). | 1 | 2 |
Deutsch v. Whitleygreen2 sentences1998In Deutscher v. Whitley, 884 F.2d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir. 1989), vacated on other grounds, 500 U.S. 901 (1991), the Ninth Circuit held that a jury instruction on depravity of mind based on NRS 200.033(8) did not satisfy the Godfrey requirements. 2 Accord ingly, in Robins v. State, 106 Nev. 611, 629 , 798 P.2d 558, 570 (1990), we adopted a narrow construction, “requiring torture, mutilation or other serious and depraved physical abuse beyond the act of killing itself, as a qualifying requirement to an aggravating circumstance based in part upon depravity of mind.” Thus construed, the depravity of 1998In Deutscher v. Whitley, 884 F.2d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir.1989), vacated on other grounds, 500 U.S. 901 , 111 S.Ct. 1678 , 114 L.Ed.2d 73 (1991), the Ninth Circuit held that a jury instruction on depravity of mind based on NRS 200.033(8) did not satisfy the Godfrey requirements. [2] Accordingly, in Robins v. State, 106 Nev. 611, 629 , 798 P.2d 558, 570 (1990), we adopted a narrow construction, "requiring torture, mutilation or other serious and depraved physical abuse beyond the act of killing itself, as a qualifying requirement to an aggravating circumstance based in part upon depravity of mind." | 1 | 1 |
Herzog v. Stategreen1 sentence1996See, e.g., Herzog v. State, 439 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1983) (the prevention of lawful arrest aggravator "may be applicable when the fact finder determines that the dominant motive of the murder was for the elimination of witnesses"). [24] Prior to a 1995 amendment, NRS 200.033(8) provided that first-degree murder may be aggravated where "[t]he murder involved torture, depravity of mind or the mutilation of the victim." To ensure that this aggravator is applied in a constitutional manner, this court held that NRS 200.033(8) requires "torture, mutilation or other serious and depraved physical abuse b | 1 | 1 |
Amer v. Department of Social Servicesgreen2 sentences1996See, e.g., Herzog v. State, 439 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1983) (the prevention of lawful arrest aggravator "may be applicable when the fact finder determines that the dominant motive of the murder was for the elimination of witnesses"). [24] Prior to a 1995 amendment, NRS 200.033(8) provided that first-degree murder may be aggravated where "[t]he murder involved torture, depravity of mind or the mutilation of the victim." To ensure that this aggravator is applied in a constitutional manner, this court held that NRS 200.033(8) requires "torture, mutilation or other serious and depraved physical abuse b 1996Prior to a 1995 amendment, NRS 200.033(8) provided that first-degree murder may be aggravated where “[t]he murder involved torture, depravity of mind or the mutilation of the victim.” To ensure that this aggravator is applied in a constitutional manner, this court held that NRS 200.033(8) requires “torture, mutilation or other serious and depraved physical abuse beyond the act of killing itself, as a qualifying requirement to an aggravating circumstance based in part upon depravity of mind.” Robins v. State, 106 Nev. 611, 629 , 798 P.2d 558, 570 (1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 970 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Godfrey v. Georgiagreen2 sentences1993In Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428 , 100 S.Ct. 1759, 1764 , 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980), the Supreme Court requires jurisdictions imposing the death penalty to "channel the sentencer's discretion by `clear and objective standards' that provide `specific and detailed guidance,' and that `make rationally reviewable the process for imposing a sentence of death.'" In Robins v. State, 106 Nev. 611, 629 , 798 P.2d 558, 570 (1990), this court said, [W]e construe the instruction [identical to Instruction No. 8] and the statute (NRS 200.033(8)) upon which it is based as requiring torture, mutilation or 1993In Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428 , 100 S.Ct. 1759, 1764 , 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980), the Supreme Court requires jurisdictions imposing the death penalty to "channel the sentencer's discretion by `clear and objective standards' that provide `specific and detailed guidance,' and that `make rationally reviewable the process for imposing a sentence of death.'" In Robins v. State, 106 Nev. 611, 629 , 798 P.2d 558, 570 (1990), this court said, [W]e construe the instruction [identical to Instruction No. 8] and the statute (NRS 200.033(8)) upon which it is based as requiring torture, mutilation or | 1 | 1 |
Jimenez v. Stategreen2 sentences1991Accord Jimenez v. State, 106 Nev. 769 , 801 P.2d 1366 (1990). 1991Accord Jimenez v. State, 106 Nev. 769 , 801 P.2d 1366 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Angelone v. Deutscher
green
2 sentences1998In Deutscher v. Whitley, 884 F.2d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir. 1989), vacated on other grounds, 500 U.S. 901 (1991), the Ninth Circuit held that a jury instruction on depravity of mind based on NRS 200.033(8) did not satisfy the Godfrey requirements. 2 Accord ingly, in Robins v. State, 106 Nev. 611, 629 , 798 P.2d 558, 570 (1990), we adopted a narrow construction, “requiring torture, mutilation or other serious and depraved physical abuse beyond the act of killing itself, as a qualifying requirement to an aggravating circumstance based in part upon depravity of mind.” Thus construed, the depravity of 1998In Deutscher v. Whitley, 884 F.2d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir.1989), vacated on other grounds, 500 U.S. 901 , 111 S.Ct. 1678 , 114 L.Ed.2d 73 (1991), the Ninth Circuit held that a jury instruction on depravity of mind based on NRS 200.033(8) did not satisfy the Godfrey requirements. [2] Accordingly, in Robins v. State, 106 Nev. 611, 629 , 798 P.2d 558, 570 (1990), we adopted a narrow construction, "requiring torture, mutilation or other serious and depraved physical abuse beyond the act of killing itself, as a qualifying requirement to an aggravating circumstance based in part upon depravity of mind." | 1 | 1998–1998 |
California v. Salgado
green
1 sentence1998In Deutscher v. Whitley, 884 F.2d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir.1989), vacated on other grounds, 500 U.S. 901 , 111 S.Ct. 1678 , 114 L.Ed.2d 73 (1991), the Ninth Circuit held that a jury instruction on depravity of mind based on NRS 200.033(8) did not satisfy the Godfrey requirements. [2] Accordingly, in Robins v. State, 106 Nev. 611, 629 , 798 P.2d 558, 570 (1990), we adopted a narrow construction, "requiring torture, mutilation or other serious and depraved physical abuse beyond the act of killing itself, as a qualifying requirement to an aggravating circumstance based in part upon depravity of mind." | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Lockett v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1996The requisite limiting instruction was given in this case. [25] The government had sought to use Powell's involvement in the Wardelle Street murders to obtain an upward enhancement of Powell's sentence for a federal drug trafficking conviction. [26] Evans has not appealed the exclusion of this evidence at the guilt phase. [27] In Eddings , the Supreme Court held that the "sentencer [may] not be precluded from considering, as a `mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence les 1996The requisite limiting instruction was given in this case. [25] The government had sought to use Powell's involvement in the Wardelle Street murders to obtain an upward enhancement of Powell's sentence for a federal drug trafficking conviction. [26] Evans has not appealed the exclusion of this evidence at the guilt phase. [27] In Eddings , the Supreme Court held that the "sentencer [may] not be precluded from considering, as a `mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence les | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Eddings v. Oklahoma
green
1 sentence1996The requisite limiting instruction was given in this case. [25] The government had sought to use Powell's involvement in the Wardelle Street murders to obtain an upward enhancement of Powell's sentence for a federal drug trafficking conviction. [26] Evans has not appealed the exclusion of this evidence at the guilt phase. [27] In Eddings , the Supreme Court held that the "sentencer [may] not be precluded from considering, as a `mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence les | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Robbins v. United States
green
1 sentence1993This court has held that there must be a showing of “torture, mutilation or other serious and depraved physical abuse beyond the act of killing itself, as a qualifying requirement to an aggravating circumstance based in part upon depravity of mind.” Robbins v. State, 106 Nev. 611 , 798 P.2d 558 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1036 , 111 S.Ct. 1608 (1991). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.