302 P.3d 1
Idaho2012Background
- Leavitt petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the Commission of Pardons and Parole to schedule a full open hearing on his petition for commutation and publish notice as required by IDAPA 50.01.01.450.02.
- The Commission denied Leavitt’s request for a public hearing on the commutation petition in executive session on June 5, 2012.
- A death warrant for Leavitt’s June 12, 2012 execution was issued by the district court based on existing death sentence and the absence of a stay, despite ongoing federal litigation.
- Leavitt filed related federal court motions; federal proceedings and rulings are summarized to provide context for the state-court mandamus petition.
- Leavitt asserts violations of Idaho open meetings statutes (I.C. §§ 67-2340 et seq.) and seeks mandamus or an alternative stay.
- The Supreme Court granted expedited consideration and addressed whether Leavitt is entitled to a full, open hearing or mandamus directing such action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open hearing requirement under Article IV §7 | Leavitt argues denial in executive session violated Article IV §7 open hearing mandate. | Commission argues Article IV §7 applies to clemency grants, not to denials, and executive sessions are permissible. | Executive-session denial did not violate Article IV §7. |
| Adequate remedy at law to preclude mandamus | Leavitt contends civil action under open meetings law provides remedy. | Open meetings remedy is adequate, potentially precluding mandamus. | No adequate remedy in ordinary course; mandamus may issue. |
| Authority to decide commutation in executive session | Open meetings law forbids final decisions in executive session; denial should be open. | Open meetings law permits executive-session deliberations/decisions on pardons/commutations when required by statute. | Executive-session denial complies with open meetings law because statutes allow such decision in executive session. |
| Constitutional interpretation of clemency process | Clemency proceedings require open hearing and notice before denial. | Clemency process allows discretionary, possibly non-open proceedings; denial in executive session is permitted. | Article IV §7 does not require a public hearing for denial; clemency proceedings are discretionary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Indus. Comm'n, 131 Idaho 457 (Idaho 1997) (emphasis on constitutional questions and statute interpretation as questions of law)
- Stuart v. State, 149 Idaho 35 (Idaho 2010) (free review on constitutional questions; interpretation under Idaho law)
- State ex rel. Kempthorne v. Blaine Cnty., 139 Idaho 348 (Idaho 2003) (statutory interpretation; constitutional concerns)
- St. Luke's Magic Valley Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Gooding Cnty., 149 Idaho 584 (Idaho 2010) (literal interpretation of statutes; open meetings framework)