Whether the Constitution requires—in a state in which a jury is required to find that mitigating circumstances do not outweigh the aggravating circumstances before considering the death penalty—that this finding be made by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt?

QUESTION PRESENTED (Capital Case) Nevada’s capital sentencing scheme requires a jury to make two separate eligibility findings before it can consider the death penalty as a sentencing option. First, the jury is required to find the existence of at least one statutory aggravating circumstance. Second, it must determine whether any aggravating circumstances found to exist are outweighed by any mitigating circumstances. Only after these findings are made can the jury move to the third step of Nevada’s sentencing scheme and consider other aspects of the defendant’s character and record to determine whether death is the appropriate punishment. The Nevada Supreme Court has concluded that a jury need not make the second eligibility finding, i.e., the outweighing determination, beyond a reasonable doubt. This presents the following question for this Court’s review: Whether the Constitution requires—in a state in which a jury is required to find that mitigating circumstances do not outweigh the aggravating circumstances before considering the death penalty—that this finding be made by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt? i