State v. Mark Lankford
399 P.3d 804
| Idaho | 2017Background
- Mark Henry Lankford was retried in 2008 for two 1983 murders after prior proceedings (including a Ninth Circuit remand for ineffective assistance). A jury convicted him of two counts of felony murder and he received consecutive life sentences.
- Several issues arose at retrial: the trial judge mentioned during voir dire that there had been a prior trial and an appeal; deceased witnesses’ prior testimony was read into the record; and testimony from accomplices Bryan Lankford and Lane Thomas was central to proving intent to commit robbery before the killings.
- Defense counsel did not contemporaneously object to many contested matters (voir dire remark, some evidentiary matters, many closing-argument comments), so appellate review focused in part on whether any errors were "fundamental."
- The district court allowed prior testimony from deceased witnesses under Idaho Evidentiary Rule 804; defense challenged that and other rulings in motions for new trial and on appeal.
- The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed claims including voir dire impropriety, jury-instruction adequacy on felony murder intent, statutory limits on use of prior-trial material (I.C. § 19-2405), and alleged prosecutorial misconduct including Brady/Napue failures. The Court vacated the conviction and ordered a new trial based on undisclosed impeachment promises to Lane Thomas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lankford) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire mention of prior trial | Court’s statement that there had been a prior trial and appeal created implied juror bias warranting reversal | State: comment did not disclose prior conviction; defense invited/failed to object; no fundamental error | Mention did not state a prior guilty verdict; not extreme implied bias; no fundamental error (claim considered not barred by invited-error doctrine) |
| Jury instructions on felony murder intent | Instructions were ambiguous and could allow conviction without finding Lankford formed intent to rob before homicide | State: instructions (read as a whole) required intent to rob before the killings; accessory-after-the-fact addressed | Instructions, taken together, correctly required intent to commit robbery prior to homicide; no reversible error |
| I.C. § 19-2405—use of prior testimony and references to former trial | Statute’s phrase "all testimony must be produced anew" bars reading prior testimony and statute forbids referral to former verdict/trial | State: Idaho Rules of Evidence govern admissibility; I.R.E. 804 permits prior testimony of unavailable (deceased) witnesses; judge did not mention a prior verdict | Prior testimony admissible under I.R.E. 804; reference to prior trial (not verdict) did not violate § 19-2405; district court acted within discretion |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / Brady & Napue (Thomas) | Prosecutors withheld material impeachment (promises to help Thomas get out of prison / secure probation) and failed to correct false testimony — undermining confidence in verdict | State: the jury knew of a letter; undisclosed details were cumulative; any error harmless given impeachment at trial | Court found prosecutors failed to disclose pretrial promises to Thomas (beyond a mere letter) and that Thomas’ credibility was central; nondisclosure was material under Brady/Napue — conviction vacated and new trial ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Lankford v. Idaho, 500 U.S. 110 (defendant must receive proper notice before seeking death penalty)
- Lankford v. Arave, 468 F.3d 578 (9th Cir.) (ineffective assistance of counsel required retrial/remand)
- State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (Idaho 2010) (fundamental-error standard for unobjected-to constitutional claims)
- State v. Draper, 151 Idaho 576 (Idaho 2011) (instructional-error and jury-instruction review principles)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (Brady materiality standard: suppressed evidence undermines confidence in outcome)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (prosecution must correct false testimony; material falsehoods require reversal)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence)