Shuman was tried and convicted under the Nevada Capital Murder Statute, which mandates the death penalty for a murder committed by an inmate serving a life sentence without parole. The court found that the Nevada law did not meet fourth and eighth amendment constitutional requirements regarding due process and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The majority reiterated its position that an individual sentenced to life imprisonment is entitled to full due-process protection, including individualized sentencing, regardless of the circumstances of the offense. In contrast, the more conservative dissenting position asserted that inmates serving life sentences for murder need not be allowed to present mitigating evidence during their second murder trial and that the States should be permitted to execute such offenders summarily, citing State interests in deterrence and retribution. In rejecting such arguments for mandatory death sentencing, the majority stated that legitimate State interests could be fully satisfied through the use of a guided-discretion statute that ensures adherence to the constitutional mandate of heightened reliability in death-penalty determinations through individualized sentencing. 115 footnotes.