Lead Opinion
By the Court,
In this appeal, we consider whether we should extend the holding in our decision in McConnell v. State
FACTS
Hernandez was convicted of first-degree murder, burglary while in possession of a weapon, second-degree kidnapping, and unlawful sexual penetration of a dead body. The murder victim was Hernandez’s ex-wife, Donna. Hernandez murdered Donna at her home and kidnapped their three-year-old daughter Ana, who witnessed the killing.
At approximately 7 a.m. on October 6, 1999, Hernandez was stopped for speeding by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officer
Officers responding to Donna’s house found her body on the stairs. An autopsy revealed that she had been strangled to death, manually and by an object such as a foot or a knife placed against her throat. She also sustained multiple stab and slash wounds and blunt force head trauma. Apparently postmortem, a dinner knife had been thrust into her vagina with sufficient force to perforate the vaginal wall and penetrate her abdominal cavity. A seven-inch serrated knife, its blade broken from the handle, was found near her body; Hernandez’s palm print was found on it. Hernandez’s and Donna’s DNA were found in the blood at the crime scene, on the pajamas Ana was wearing when Hernandez was arrested, and on the ring taken from Hernandez’s hand when he was booked into custody.
This court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
DISCUSSION
Application of McConnell v. State
Hernandez argues that the burglary aggravating circumstance is invalid under McConnell and that McConnell should also be applied to invalidate the torture aggravating circumstance. We agree that the burglary aggravator is invalid under McConnell, but we decline to extend that case to invalidate the torture aggravating circumstance. After striking the burglary aggravating circumstance, we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found Hernandez death eligible and sentenced him to death.
Burglary aggravating circumstance
Two years after upholding Hernandez’s conviction and death sentence on direct appeal, this court decided McConnell, holding that it is unconstitutional ‘ ‘to base an aggravating circumstance in a capital prosecution on the felony upon which a felony murder is predicated.”
Torture aggravating circumstance
Hernandez argues that, similar to McConnell’s holding respecting felony murder, it is unconstitutional for the State to charge first-degree murder based on torture and also base an aggravating circumstance on the same act or acts of torture unless it is clear that the jury did not rely on torture murder in finding the defendant guilty. Therefore, according to Hernandez, because it is unclear whether the jurors relied on the torture-murder theory to find him guilty of first-degree
In McConnell, we concluded that the United States and Nevada Constitutions require a capital sentencing scheme to “ ‘genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty and must reasonably justify the imposition of a more severe sentence on the defendant compared to others found guilty of murder.’ ”
Accordingly, here, we must first determine whether Nevada’s definition of torture murder is sufficiently narrow such that no further narrowing of death eligibility is needed once the defendant is convicted. We conclude that it is and that no further narrowing is required. Consequently, we need not address the second question posed in McConnell.
Torture murder identifies a constitutionally narrow class of murders, which only includes those defendants who act with calculated intent to inflict pain for revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose and to inflict pain beyond the killing itself.
Moreover, the concern engendering our ruling in McConnell is not present here. Nothing in McConnell prohibits per se using the same conduct to support a murder theory and an aggravating circumstance.
Reweighing
After striking the burglary aggravating circumstance, we may reweigh the aggravating and mitigating evidence or conduct a harmless-error review.
The jurors found seven mitigating circumstances: Hernandez lacked a significant criminal history; he committed the murder while under extreme mental or emotional disturbance; he accepted responsibility for the crime; he expressed remorse; he was intoxicated at the time of the crime; he had been gainfully employed throughout his adult life; and he spared the life of his three-year-old daughter, who was present during the crime, even though he had threatened to kill her. Two valid aggravating circumstances remain against Hernandez: the murder involved torture or mutilation of the victim, and he subjected the victim to nonconsensual sexual penetration immediately before, during, or after the murder.
In reweighing the aggravating and the mitigating evidence, we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found Hernandez death eligible. An autopsy revealed that Donna died from strangulation, evidenced by bruising on her neck caused by fingers and the placement of a foot or knife against her neck.
The brutality of the killing did not end with the injuries described above. The autopsy revealed the tip of the handle of a dinner knife protruding from Donna’s vagina.
In addition to the horrific nature of the crime, the evidence presented at trial revealed that Donna had secured a protective order in March 1999 against Hernandez as a result of his repeated threats to kill her.
Claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel
Hernandez argues that the district court erred by denying numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We disagree.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are evaluated under the two-prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington.
Before considering the individual claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we address Hernandez’s argument that he need not demonstrate prejudice under the second prong of the Strickland test and is instead entitled to a presumption of prejudice. Specifically, Hernandez argues that counsel’s actions affected the overall integrity of the adversarial process and should therefore be analyzed under the presumption-of-prejudice standard articulated in United States v. Cronic.
Whether a petitioner has demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland presents a mixed question of fact and law that is subject, in part, to independent review.
Failure to challenge statements as violating Miranda
Hernandez argues that the district court erred in denying his claim that counsel
Miranda affects the admissibility of statements made during “in-custody interrogation.”
After Officer Swoboda stopped Hernandez for speeding, Hernandez exited his car, said, “Just shoot me, just kill me,” and told his daughter he was sorry. Although Hernandez was subsequently handcuffed due to his erratic behavior, there is no indication that at the time he made these comments he had been arrested or restrained or that Officer Swoboda suspected him of anything other than speeding. Hernandez only refers to one question asked him by a police officer: when Officer Swoboda noticed cuts on Hernandez’s face and hand, he asked Hernandez what happened. Hernandez responded that he had fought with his ex-wife. Through his police computer, Officer Swoboda learned of Donna’s restraining order against Hernandez. Deducing that a domestic violence incident had occurred, Officer Swoboda requested officers be sent to Donna’s residence, where her body was discovered. Suspecting Hernandez of driving under the influence of alcohol, Hernandez was administered a horizontal gaze nystagmus test, which he failed. Officer Swoboda placed Hernandez under arrest, after which Hernandez said, “I killed her” and “I killed them.” Officer Swoboda advised Hernandez of his Miranda rights, and Hernandez continued to say “I killed her” and “I killed them.”
Applying the definitions of “custody” and “interrogation,” explained above, Hernandez’s statements were not made while he was in custody or subject to interrogation. Hernandez wholly fails to explain how any of these statements were made in violation of Miranda. We discern nothing in Officer Swoboda’s words or actions that were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Because a motion to suppress any of the statements described above would not have succeeded, we conclude that the district court correctly ruled that trial counsel were not ineffective for failing to make such a motion.
Counsel’s concession of Hernandez’s guilt
Hernandez argues that the district court erred by denying his claim that trial counsel were ineffective for conceding his culpability for Donna’s death without obtaining his consent. Hernandez relies on Jones v. State
Counsel, Hernandez, and the district court met in chambers, without the State, to discuss the decision to concede culpability to second-degree murder. At that hearing, counsel explained the strategy of conceding guilt. The district court judge admonished counsel, in Hernandez’s presence, that she felt it unwise for any defense counsel to admit guilt of anything in front of a jury because it relieves the State of its burden of proof. The district court also reminded counsel that there can be unanticipated changes in the strength and weakness of a case during trial. Counsel explained that due to the physical evidence tying Hernandez to the crime, they felt it would be “foolish” to argue to the jury that Hernandez was not culpable for Donna’s death. Counsel further indicated that the defense’s goal was to gain credibility with the jury and thereby hopefully avoid a death sentence. The district court twice asked Hernandez if he understood that counsel would admit that he was culpable in Donna’s death to try to avoid a first-degree murder conviction, and Hernandez twice responded that he understood and agreed with this strategy.
A concession of guilt involves the waiver of a constitutional right that must be voluntary and knowing.
We take this opportunity, however, to address the proper procedure when a defense strategy at trial includes a concession of guilt. As noted above, in Jones, we held that counsel was ineffective for conceding his client’s guilt in closing argument without obtaining the client’s consent and after the client had testified and proclaimed his innocence.
Failure to communicate and adequately investigate case
Hernandez contends that the district court erred by denying his claim that counsel
Failure to challenge competency
Hernandez argues that the district court erred by denying his claim that counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge his competency to stand trial. Hernandez’s explanation of this claim is cursory at best. At the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, co-counsel at trial testified that the defense elected not to call the defense’s expert neuropsychologist at trial because his testimony would have been more harmful than helpful. Although the expert’s report indicated that Hernandez was unable to reason properly and was under profound emotional turmoil at the time of Donna’s attack and his subsequent arrest, the expert also opined that Hernandez displayed deceptive behavior, denied culpability for the crime despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and had no mental health or psychological problems. Hernandez nonetheless argues that the expert’s observations that he could not reason properly and was suffering emotional distress evinced his “lack of competence, and inability to stand trial.’ ’
A defendant is incompetent when he is “not of sufficient mentality to be able to understand the nature of the criminal charges against him,” rendering him unable to assist in his defense.
Failure to seek a change of venue
Hernandez contends that the district court erred by denying his claim that counsel were ineffective for not seeking a change of venue in light of the publicity his case received. At the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, counsel testified that the media attention given Hernandez’s case was not excessive and that the defense was able to seat twelve jurors and alternate jurors who were
Failure to object to voluntary intoxication jury instruction
Hernandez argues that the district court erred by denying his claim that counsel were ineffective for not challenging the voluntary intoxication jury instruction as unconstitutionally overbroad. The district court instructed that “[i]f a person premeditates and deliberates upon the crime of Murder and forms a specific intent to commit that crime and thereafter becomes intoxicated, then such intoxication will not serve as a defense in order to reduce the degree of the murder.” Hernandez challenged this instruction on direct appeal. We concluded that “[although [the] instruction may [have been] too broadly stated,” it was not plainly erroneous.
Moreover, Hernandez has failed to establish that the instruction was intrinsically incorrect or unconstitutionally overbroad. Although evidence of intoxication may reduce the degree of murder because intoxication may affect the ability to form the requisite intent, once the requisite intent is conceived, subsequent intoxication has no effect on the original formation of the intent to commit an offense.
Because Hernandez failed to show that counsel were ineffective for not objecting to the constitutionality of the challenged instruction, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying this claim.
Miscellaneous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
Hernandez asserts that the district court erred by denying his claims that counsel were ineffective for failing to file motions to: (1) challenge the racial composition of the jury venire, (2) challenge matters related to the questioning of jurors during voir dire, (3) bifurcate the penalty hearing, (4) dismiss the notice of intent to seek the death penalty because probable cause for the aggravating circumstances was not established at the preliminary hearing and the aggravating circumstances were not charged in the information, (5) exclude evidence of uncharged misconduct, (6) seek exclusion of hearsay statements, (7) compel compliance with Brady v. Maryland,
Hernandez further argues that the district court erroneously denied his claims that his counsel were ineffective for failing to file motions to: (1) dismiss the notice of intent to seek the death penalty because Nevada’s death penalty scheme does not narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty, (2) preclude prosecutorial misconduct, and (3) dismiss the kidnapping charge as legally and factually impossible. As with the claims listed above, Hernandez failed to provide adequate facts or argument establishing that his counsel were deficient. Additionally, we concluded on direct appeal that each of the underlying issues in these three claims lacked merit.
Hernandez also argued that his counsel were ineffective during the penalty hearing for failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct and improper jury instructions and aggravating circumstances. However, he wholly failed to explain the bases for these claims. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying these claims.
Claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
Hernandez contends that the district court erred by denying his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise issues he specifically requested be brought forth on direct appeal and for not offering any excuse for the omissions other than this court’s order requiring appellate counsel to reduce the length of her opening brief. Hernandez neglects, however, to identify what additional issues he desired to be raised in his direct appeal. Further, during the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, appellate counsel testified that in an effort to reduce her brief to the length allowed by this court, she eliminated claims that were less likely to prevail on appeal. Nothing in appellate counsel’s testimony indicated that she excluded a claim from the reduced opening brief that she considered likely to prevail on appeal.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that Nevada’s definition of torture murder sufficiently narrows the class of persons eligible for the death penalty; therefore, McConnell does not operate to invalidate the torture aggravating circumstance. However, McConnell requires us to strike the burglary aggravating circumstance. The mitigation evidence Hernandez presented set against the horrific and senseless nature of the murder compels us to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found him death eligible and imposed a death sentence in the absence of the erroneous aggravating circumstance. We further conclude that the district court did not err in rejecting Hernandez’s other post-conviction claims. We therefore affirm the district court’s order denying post-conviction relief.
Notes
Hernandez v. State,
Bejarano v. State,
The State also alleged as an aggravating circumstance that Donna’s murder was committed during a kidnapping; however, the jury rejected this aggravating circumstance.
McConnell,
Id. at 1065,
Domingues v. State,
We have rejected other arguments seeking to extend McConnell’s holding beyond the scope of felony murder. See Blake v. State,
McConnell,
Id. at 1066,
See Collman v. State,
See Clemons v. Mississippi,
Browning,
Hernandez v. State,
Id. at 519,
Id.
Id. at 519,
Id. at 519,
Id.
Id. at 517,
Id. at 517,
Id.
Id. at 520,
Strickland,
Means v. State,
Id. at 659.
Id.
Riley v. State,
Id.
Miranda v. Arizona,
Id. at
California v. Beheler,
Rhode Island v. Innis,
To the extent Hernandez contends that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this matter on direct appeal, we conclude that he failed to demonstrate that it had a reasonable probability of success. See Kirksey v. State,
Id. at 739,
See Hargrove v. State,
See State v. Perez,
See Perez,
Hernandez’s claim that the district court improperly denied his pretrial motion for new counsel was waived by his failure to raise it on direct appeal. See NRS 34.810(l)(b)(2), (3). In an attempt to demonstrate good cause for this failure, he cites Stewart v. Warden,
See Hargrove,
Hill v. State,
Hanley v. State,
To the extent Hernandez argues that his death sentence is unconstitutional because of overwhelming pretrial publicity, this is a claim appropriate for direct appeal, and he has not demonstrated good cause for his failure to raise it previously or prejudice. See NRS 34.810(l)(b)(2), (3).
Hernandez v. State,
See NRS 193.220 (“No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication shall be deemed less criminal by reason of his condition, but whenever the actual existence of any particular purpose, motive or intent is a necessary element to constitute a particular species or degree of crime, the fact of his intoxication may be taken into consideration in determining the purpose, motive or intent.”).
To the extent that Hernandez argues that the district court erred in giving the challenged instruction, we considered this matter on appeal and our ruling is the law of the case. See Pellegrini v. State,
Hernandez,
We further reject Hernandez’s claim that all of these claims considered cumulatively established ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying this claim.
See Jones v. Barnes,
Concurrence in Part
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur with the majority that the burglary aggravating circumstance must be stricken pursuant to McConnell v. State.
I dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that after reweighing the aggravating and mitigating evidence Hernandez’s death sentence may nonetheless be upheld. Although there is sufficient evidence to support the remaining aggravating circumstances, they are not persuasive enough to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found Hernandez death eligible and imposed death absent the erroneous burglary aggravating circumstance. I do not minimize the gravity of the aggravating circumstances. The trial testimony established that Hernandez penetrated the victim’s vaginal cavity with a dinner knife, most likely postmortem. The evidence further showed that Hernandez brutally inflicted multiple stab wounds and strangled Donna with great force. Despite the viability of the remaining aggravating circumstances, however, Hernandez presented a compelling case in mitigation such that, in my view, the death sentence must be vacated.
During the penalty phase, Hernandez introduced testimony from his employer, friends, coworkers, and brother and made a statement in allocution. Specifically, Anibal Sabate testified that Hernandez worked at Sabate’s restaurant. He characterized Hernandez as a good employee with integrity. Further, several coworkers from Hernandez’s full-time job at Sam’s Town Casino lauded him as an exceptional, respectful, and polite employee who had been selected as employee of the month. These witnesses also described Hernandez as a kind, generous, and supportive friend. Many of these witnesses also testified that Hernandez worked three jobs, including owning his own janitorial service, and that he always spoke and acted lovingly toward his daughter Ana. Hernandez expressed to his friends and coworkers that he desired to reunite with Donna and live together as a family. Hernandez’s brother, Raphael, testified that he lived with Hernandez and Donna for a period of time and never observed any problems between them. Raphael also stated that Hernandez, originally from Mexico, had never been in trouble with the police. Raphael Meza, a childhood friend from Mexico, testified that Hernandez worked hard holding down three jobs. Meza also described Hernandez as a devoted father who wanted to reunite with his ex-wife and to provide a better future for his daughter. Meza testified that Hernandez had a good and caring family while growing up and that Hernandez had an alcohol problem.
Hernandez made a statement in allocution, expressing his deep love for his daughter Ana. Hernandez stated that his only reason for living was Ana and that one of the best moments in his life was when Ana was born. He pleaded with the jury to allow him the opportunity to be with his daughter.
The guilt phase evidence also showed that immediately after Officer Swoboda stopped Hernandez for speeding, Hernandez exited his car with his hands raised and crying, asking Officer Swoboda to “Just shoot me, just kill me.” Hernandez was emotional throughout the encounter and subsequent analysis of his breath revealed blood alcohol levels of 0.165 and 0.154 percent. During transport to jail, Hernandez cried and attempted to jump out of the moving vehicle, telling the police escort that his life was over and to shoot him. In the booking area of the jail, Hernandez repeatedly hit the back of his head against a concrete wall and had to be restrained.
Considering the force of the evidence presented in mitigation weighed against the evidence supporting the remaining aggravating circumstances, I would vacate Hernandez’s death sentence and remand this matter for a