Evans v. State, 117 Nev. 609

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed Vernell Ray Evans’s post-conviction habeas petition challenging his convictions and death sentences for burglary and four murders. The court affirmed the judgment insofar as it upheld the convictions, but concluded that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in failing to challenge improper prosecutorial arguments and related penalty-phase issues. It vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new penalty hearing.

Holdings

1. A petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing based on conclusory allegations; specific factual allegations are required, and a hearing is unnecessary when the allegations are belied or repelled by the record.
2. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show objectively deficient performance and a reasonable probability that, but for the errors, the result would have been different.
3. Counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge the prosecutor's erroneous argument that the jury could consider other-character or 'other matter' evidence before reaching the legally required stage of determining death eligibility.
4. The penalty-phase errors, considered in conjunction with counsel's deficient failure to challenge them, prejudiced Evans and required vacatur of the death sentence and a new penalty hearing.
5. The cumulative effect of the identified guilt-phase errors did not undermine confidence in the convictions or establish a reasonable probability of a different guilt-phase result.
6. Independent habeas claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal are waived absent cause and actual prejudice; ineffective-assistance claims are generally properly raised in a first post-conviction petition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Evans's post-conviction claims required an evidentiary hearing or discovery.
2. Whether trial and appellate counsel were ineffective under Strickland for failing to challenge evidentiary errors, prosecutorial misconduct, charging deficiencies, jury issues, and other alleged trial errors.
3. Whether the prosecutor improperly argued that the jury could consider 'other matter' evidence before determining death eligibility.
4. Whether counsel's failure to challenge the penalty-phase argument prejudiced Evans and required a new penalty hearing.
5. Whether the district court properly applied procedural bars to claims that were or could have been raised earlier.
6. Whether cumulative errors undermined confidence in Evans's convictions.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded