Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lane v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided September 29, 1994No. 23825Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSpringer, J.

I concur in the affirmance of Lane’s conviction for first-degree murder; I dissent from the affirmance of the death sentence in this case. That sentence is seriously flawed for two reasons: first, the district attorney charged the wrong aggravating circumstance, and therefore Lane is not death-eligible; second, Lane has raised a colorable claim that he is the victim of a racially-based discriminatory policy employed by the Washoe County District Attorney in death cases. That claim must be given full and proper hearing. I summarize these two points as follows:

*11701. This murder was committed during…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. McCleskey v. KempSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Clemons v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. In Re BellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  4. The Confiscation CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
  5. Turner v. StaggsNevada Supreme Court · 1973

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API