State v. Draper, 261 P.3d 853

Background

Draper, a sixteen-year-old at the time, and Torey Adamcik were arrested, tried as adults, and convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in separate trials for the Stoddart homicide.
Video recordings and notes from the defendants prior to the murder showed planning to kill and a fixation on making history, including phrases about killing Cassie and others, with various knives and disguises later found at a burial site.
Stoddart was murdered on September 22–23, 2006; Draper admitted in later interviews that he and Adamcik planned and carried out the attack, with Draper stabbing Stoddart after Adamcik stabbed her, though he initially claimed he did not.
Draper’s fourth police interview, conducted after his parents were not present, yielded inculpatory statements, and the defense moved to suppress it; the district court denied suppression after finding a voluntary Miranda waiver.
At sentencing, the court imposed a fixed life sentence for murder and an indeterminate life sentence with 30 years fixed for conspiracy; Draper challenged several aspects including jury instructions and the PSI, while the district court conducted a Rule 32-compliant presentence process.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Conspiracy instruction error	Draper contends the conspiracy instruction (especially over 'for the purpose of') failed to require proof the overt acts furthered the conspiracy, violating elements and due process.	State argues error was harmless or not an element omission; or that misnumbering is harmless surplusage.	Conspiracy instruction error not harmless; conviction vacated and new trial on conspiracy charges.
Suppression of fourth interview	Draper argues the fourth interview should have been suppressed since parents were not present and coercion/lack of waiver occurred.	State argues waiver was voluntary under totality of circumstances; presentence context not coercive.	Suppression proper to deny; waiver found knowing and voluntary; interview properly admitted.
Cumulative error	Cumulative impact of misinstruction and fourth interview undermines fair trial.	Errors avoided by trial integrity; no cumulative error since murder conviction unaffected.	Cumulative error doctrine does not apply; murder conviction upheld.
Fixed life sentence for murder of Draper (cruel and unusual punishment)	Juvenile fixed life sentence violates Eighth/Idaho constitutional prohibitions as applied to juveniles.	Sentencing consistent with evolving standards and case law distinguishing homicide from nonhomicide offenses.	Fixed life sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under U.S. or Idaho constitutions.
Rule 35 denial	Additional information warrants reducing sentence under Rule 35.	Court properly weighed new information and kept original sentence consistent with gravity of crime.	District court did not abuse discretion in denying Rule 35 motion.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Shackelford, 247 P.3d 582 (Idaho 2010) (standard for reviewing jury instructions as a whole)
Aragon, 690 P.2d 293 (Idaho 1984) (distinction between malice and willfulness; elements of murder)
In re Weick, 127 P.3d 178 (Idaho 2005) (interpretation of willfulness and other terms)
State v. Doe, 50 P.3d 1014 (Idaho 2002) (six-factor test for voluntariness of confessions)
Estrada v. State, 149 P.3d 833 (Idaho 2006) (counsel and presentence interview considerations)
State v. Perry, 245 P.3d 961 (Idaho 2010) (harmless error standard for partially erroneous instructions)
Neder v. U.S., 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (omitted element can be harmless where uncontested and overwhelming)
State v. Windom, 253 P.3d 310 (Idaho 2011) (distinguishes homicide vs non-homicide offenses in Eighth Amendment analysis)
Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (U.S. 2008) (distinction between homicide and nonhomicide offenses in Eighth Amendment)
Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (U.S. 2010) (juvenile life-for-nonhomicide punishments and evolving standards)