Nunnery v. State, 263 P.3d 235

Nunnery and three accomplices robbed several victims in a Las Vegas apartment complex, firing at bystanders and killing Saul Nunez; Nunnery confessed planning the robbery and choosing victims, and admitted to killing Nunez and shooting Leon.
A guilt-phase verdict found Nunnery guilty of open murder on multiple theories, plus attempted murder, robbery and related charges.
The penalty phase was bifurcated: Phase I weighed six aggravators and multiple mitigators; Phase II included additional sentencing evidence and allocution by Nunnery, who admitted guilt and showed no remorse.
The State sought the death penalty, asserting six aggravating circumstances, including prior violent felonies and operations during robbery, while Nunnery presented social history and possible fetal-alcohol syndrome as mitigation.
Jury found six aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt and weighed eleven mitigating factors, ultimately sentencing Nunnery to death; district court later imposed corresponding prison terms for other convictions.
The Court conducted mandatory review under NRS 177.055(2) and affirmed the death sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether untimely notice of evidence in aggravation was proper	Nunnery argues lack of good cause for untimely SCR 250(4)(f) notice	State contends district court acted within discretion with good-cause finding and no prejudice	Yes; the district court did not abuse discretion; good cause factors support admission.
Whether PSI evidence from another case is admissible at penalty hearing	Nunnery argues NRS 176.156(5) precludes PSI reading; Herman conflict	State contends PSI findings are admissible under NRS 175.552 and 176.156(2)	Yes; PSI evidence admissible; Herman disavowed and discretion preserved.
Whether weighing aggravating and mitigating evidence requires beyond-a-reasonable-doubt	Nunnery asserts weighing is a factual finding requiring BRD	State contends weighing is not a factual finding and not BRD; Ring/Apprendi limits apply to aggravators, not weighing	Weighing is not fact-finding; BRD does not apply to weighing.
Whether the great-risk-of-death to more than one person aggravator was properly noticed and proven	Nunnery challenges untimely notice and theory of imputed liability	State maintains timely notice and theory as to Nunnery's conduct; evidence supports aggravator	Yes; notice and theory properly supported; evidence sufficient.

Mason v. State, 118 Nev. 554 (Nev. 2002) (good-cause analysis for untimely notice; admissibility of non-listed evidence)
State v. Dist. Ct. (Marshall), 11 P.3d 1209 (Nev. 2000) (good cause framework for late notices; abuse-of-discretion standard)
Bennett v. District Court, 121 Nev. 802 (Nev. 2005) (notice provisions; purpose to protect due process in capital cases)
Guy v. State, 839 P.2d 578 (Nev. 1992) (PSI admissibility; broad discretion at penalty phase)
McConnell v. State (McConnell III), 125 Nev. 243 (Nev. 2009) (weighing not a BRD fact-finding step; overruling Johnson dicta to extent inconsistent)
Johnson v. State, 118 Nev. 787 (Nev. 2002) (held weighing may be BRD in light of Ring/Apprendi conflict; overruled to extent noted)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (jury must determine aggravating factors in capital cases when death is option)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact increasing punishment beyond statutory max must be proven to a jury)
Herman v. State, 128 P.3d 469 (Nev. 2006) (PSI use; disavowed to permit admissibility of PSI under proper guidelines)