## Facts

- Robert Royce Byford and two co-defendants were charged with the 1991 murder of 18-year-old Monica Wilkins.
- Co-defendant Todd Smith pleaded guilty to accessory to murder and testified for the State.
- Smith testified that Byford and another co-defendant, Christopher Garth Williams, had discussed “get[ting] rid of” Wilkins before the killing.
- On the night of the murder, Smith, Byford, and Williams picked up Wilkins and drove her into the desert outside Las Vegas under the pretense of finding a party.
- After stopping, Byford handed Williams a handgun and said he “couldn’t do it”; Williams shot Wilkins multiple times.
- Byford then took the gun, stated he would “make sure the bitch is dead,” and shot Wilkins twice in the head.
- Byford poured gasoline on Wilkins’s body and set it on fire.
- In a first trial, Byford was convicted and sentenced to death; that conviction was reversed and remanded due to a Fifth Amendment right-to-silence violation.
- At a second trial, Byford was again convicted of first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon and again sentenced to death.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting Byford’s testimony from the first trial at the retrial violated his constitutional rights, including the privilege against self-incrimination, given that the first conviction was reversed for constitutional error.
2. Whether the first-degree murder jury instructions on premeditation and deliberation improperly collapsed the statutory elements, failing to distinguish first-degree from second-degree murder.
3. Whether asserted additional errors (including speedy trial, evidentiary rulings, penalty-phase claims, and cumulative error) required reversal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed Byford’s conviction and death sentence.
- The court held that Byford’s first-trial testimony was admissible at the retrial because it was not shown to be constitutionally compelled.
- The court held that the challenged premeditation/deliberation instruction was flawed as phrased and warranted clarification in future cases, but did not warrant reversal on the facts presented.
- The court rejected Byford’s remaining claims, including speedy-trial and evidentiary challenges, and found no cumulative error requiring relief.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant’s prior trial testimony may be admitted at a retrial even if the prior conviction was reversed for constitutional error, absent a showing that the testimony was compelled in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
- There is no constitutional requirement that a defendant be warned that testimony given at one trial can be used in a later proceeding.
- First-degree murder instructions should separately and clearly define premeditation and deliberation to distinguish first-degree murder from lesser homicide offenses; instructional imprecision may be harmless where the evidence establishes premeditation and deliberation under any proper definition.
- Alleged trial and penalty-phase errors warrant relief only upon a showing of prejudicial error; cumulative-error relief requires that the combined effect of errors undermined the verdict or sentence.

## Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Byford’s conviction and death sentence, holding that his earlier trial testimony was admissible at retrial because it was not shown to be compelled, and that although the first-degree murder instruction on premeditation required prospective clarification, it did not justify reversal given the evidence of planning and execution of the killing.


Byford v. State, 116 Nev. 215, 994 P.2d 700 (Nev. 2000)