McConnell v. State , 120 Nev. 1043 ( 2004 )

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 validity 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.

1 484 U.S. 231 (1988).

2 101 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).

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