State v. Timothy Alan Dunlap, 155 Idaho 345

Background

Dunlap was previously sentenced to death for first-degree murder in Idaho following a plea and a separate Ohio murder confession.
The case consolidates direct appeal from the death sentence with a post-conviction relief petition challenging sentencing proceedings and counsel performance.
The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the death sentence but remanded parts of the post-conviction relief ruling for further proceedings.
Key sentencing issues included jury instructions, voir dire limits, jury sequestration, evidence rules, and prosecutorial conduct during the sentencing phase.
A threshold issue centered on Idaho Code § 19-2827 mandatory review scope and whether unpreserved errors are reviewable under Perry’s fundamental-error standard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of mandatory review under § 19-2827	Dunlap argues § 19-2827 requires review of all errors, even unpreserved ones.	State contends Perry’s fundamental error standard should apply to unpreserved claims.	Section 19-2827 requires review of all raised errors; Perry governs preserved vs. unpreserved.
Effect of J.I. 1 and independent-evidence requirement	Dunlap contends J.I. 1 wrongly framed willfulness; argues no independent-evidence for each aggravator.	State asserts harmless error; other aggravators supported death sentence.	J.I. 1 error deemed harmless; error did not alter death verdict; independent-evidence instruction deemed necessary but overall harmless.
Admission of mental health reports and confrontation rights	Dunlap asserts Confrontation Clause/5th Amendment issues regarding experts’ reports (Drs. Brooks, Doten, Estess).	State argues Confrontation Clause does not apply to sentencing; reports admissible to inform sentencing.	Admission was invited/error was harmless; Confrontation concerns do not mandate reversal; some issues remanded for potential further relief.
Post-conviction relief: ineffective assistance and Brady/Napue claims	Dunlap contends his counsel inadequately investigated/presented mitigation and rebutted aggravation; alleges Brady/Napue violations.	State argues deficiencies were tactical/insufficient prejudice or invited error; no due process violation shown.	Partial reversal: remand for evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance related to mitigation and Brady/Napue claims.

Key Cases Cited

Perry v. Idaho, 150 Idaho 209 (2010) (establishes fundamental-error standard for unpreserved trial errors in Idaho appellate review)
State v. Payne, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008) (summary-judgment standard for post-conviction relief; harmless-error framework)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (jury must determine existence of statutory aggravating circumstances in death penalty cases)
Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738 (1990) (direct-appeal review supplemented by constitutional safeguards; limitations on relief)
Arave v. Creech, 507 U.S. 463 (1993) (limiting construction of utter-disregard aggravator; jury/judge sentencing implications)
Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U.S. 1 (1994) (Caldwell framework; juror misperceptions about role not automatically reversible)
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) (sentencer may weigh mitigating evidence even if not causally connected to crime)
Kelly v. South Carolina, 534 U.S. 246 (2002) (parole ineligibility and sentencing context in death cases; Simmons related precedent)
Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994) (due process considerations when the only alternative to death is life without parole)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (Confrontation Clause scope and sentencing-phase information considerations)