*1 were “unable to magistrate’s determine the mand this case to the intent of the court to parties reading from a compensation taking of the allow for the of evidence on this agreement,” point, thus magis- ruled determination permanent award was for “[w]hether trate as a matter of fact of intent of impairment permanent or disability parties. is de- pendent on agreement the actual of the
parties.” We then ruled that question parties what the agreed ques- to was a
tion of fact Thus, for the trier of fact. we
reversed the decision, commission’s
had been law, determined as a matter of
and remanded to the commission to allow a determination of agreement the actual as a matter of fact. Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, STATE of In this ease there is no clear indication reading from a agreement of the itself of NIELD, David Lamar parties what the by executing intended this Defendant-Appellant. agreement. parties If the were told that execution agreement of such an would aid No. 15218. avoiding complications probate, Supreme Court of Idaho. and thus agreement entered into the purpose conflicts, avoiding such then June the contract present would not constitute a separate property transmutation of the into
community property. Instead, it would
have been a specifically contract entered '§ pursuant 32-921,
into urged by to I.C. as §
appellant. addition, 32-921 I.C. would specifically governed
have the effect of parties agreement,
divorce of the upon the specifically
because that statute said that
“[djivorce parties of the entered into an
agreement hereunder shall revoke the
agreement.” hand, if On the other
parties majority were aware that a of the
property question separate prop- was the
erty husband, by entering of the into agreement they intended to make clear they agreed proper- had that all of this
ty immediately be considered com- would
munity they signed property at the time agreement, agreement then the would upheld
be a transmutation and would be theory. interpretation,
upon that Either by the as a matter of
decided trier of fact
fact, compe- supported when substantial evidence, upheld to be
tent would have However,
upon appeal by such this Court. agreement interpretation as a fact has been made to this
matter of never Box, Pocatello, thus, Gaylen L. deci- for defendant- point, based on our recent Woodvine, appellant. I would reverse and re- sion *2 666 Jones, Atty. Gen., Thomas, ho, Jim Lynn E. and all holding cases otherwise are Gen., Berenter,
Sol. hereby Steven Deputy W. overruled. Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent. Consistent views, with these we hold that
the sentencing judge was not mandated to
set forth the reasons for
DONALDSON,
imposition
Chief Justice.
Thus,
the defendant’s sentence.
the sen-
appeal
to the
Appeals
Court of
in-
imposed by
tence
the district court is af-
volved a
imposed
review of the sentence
and,
firmed
holding
consistent with the
defendant,
upon
Nield,
David Lamar
the Court of
judgment
of the
for a
upon
ten-year-old
sexual assault
a
district court in all
respects
other
is af-
girl. The defendant
by
was sentenced
firmed.
custody
district court to the
of the Board of
period
Corrections for an indeterminate
BAKES, JJ.,
SHEPARD and
concur.
exceeding
years.
ten
Before the
HUNTLEY, Justice, dissenting.
Appeals, the defendant contended that the
I
respectfully
must
dissent
district
did
from the ma-
adequately
state the
jority opinion
thoughts
based
I
second
imposed,
reasons for the sentence
and that
II,
have had since I authored Osborne
su-
the sentence was excessive.
pra. A statement of the Courts reasons
granted
We
pur-
Petition for Review
imposition
certainly
sentence is
a
118(b)(2)
suant to I.A.R.
to review the sole
necessary predicate
meaningful appel-
issue of whether a district court must state
late review of the sentence. It is clear that
of record the reasons for the
im-
sentence
proceed
such a review cannot
appel-
if the
posed.
In
respects,
all other
the decision
late court is not informed as to the factual
of the
remains undis-
basis for the sentence.
turbed.
In the
publica-
American Bar Association
The Court of
examined this is-
Relating Appel-
tion entitled Standards
sue in
previous
view of their
decision in
2.3(c)
Sentencing,
late Review of
Section
Tisdale,
836,
State v.
103 Idaho
654 P.2d (1968)
commentary
sets forth the fol-
(Ct.App.1982),
wherein the Court of
lowing
requiring a
rationale for
statement
Appeals required that the sentencing court
of reasons:
“indicate of record his reasons for the sen-
“In addition to the aid that a statement
838,
imposed.”
tence then
Id. at
654 P.2d
sentencing judge will
of reasons
In applying
standard
Tisdale
courts,
give
reviewing
many
are
there
bar,
to the case at
the Court of
independent
requiring
reasons
such a
stated that the district court’s oral state-
place,
good
‘a
statement.
In the first
ments made on the record at the conclusion
reasonably
sentence is one which can be
hearing
presence
and in the
of the
explained.’ Youngdahl,
Open-
Remarks
defendant,
satisfy
were sufficient to
Program,
ing the
Institute
Sentence
standard.
Tisdale
3897,
Denver,
35 F.R.D.
Coloradod
decision,
reaching
In
the Court of
(1964).
Wyzanski, A
Compare
Trial
Appeals erroneously failed to consider Tis-
Responsibility, 65
Judge’s Freedom and
to have been overruled
this Court
1281,
attempt
dale
An
Harv.L.Rev.
1292-93.
Osborn,
104 Idaho
sentencing judge to articulate
(1983).
stated,
we
Osborn
in each case
reasons for a sentence
reiterate,
setting
again we
“that while the
greatly to the
should in itself contribute
imposition of a
point
forth of reasons for the
A
rationality of sentences.
related
particular
helpful
sentence would be
and is
serve
requirement
that such
should
encouraged,
mandatory.”
Id. at
sentencing judge
is not
to focus the
1112;
framing
dif-
663 P.2d at
see also State
discreet issues involved
See,
Brewster,
parts
ferent
of the same sentence.
LAW,
(1984). Henceforth,
e.g.,
PENAL
this is the law of Ida-
PROPOSED N.Y.
reprimanding de-
3918, Assembly
by lecturing and
Bill,
ness
Study
Senate Int.
long
(1964).
length on their
pp.
fendants at
Int.
crimes,
because
or terrible
records
requiring such
A second reason for
likely to
is less
defendant
it can have
bitter
of reasons is that
statement
emerge
prison
if
a rehabilitated
authorities
great value to corrections
society.
in a commitment.
*3
the sentence results
member of
in
recognized
principle
This
has been
Youngdahl,
Opening the Sen-
Remarks
following provision:
Jersey by the
New
Denver,
Program,
tencing Institute
report and
part
presentence
‘As
of such
(1964).
387,
Colorado,
35 F.R.D.
the in-
thereof to
before the submission
(c)
possi-
recognizes the
also
Subsection
offender is commit-
stitution to which the
given
explanation
bility that in a
case
ted,
sentencing judge shall include
do more
personally will
to the defendant
of the basic
therein a brief statement
reason,
good.
harm than
For
imposed by
so
reasons for the sentence
discretion of
provision would leave to the
CTS.
him.’ N.J. SUPER. AND COUNTY
option
sentencing judge the
(CRIM.)
3:7-10(b).
the MOD-
R.
also
See
the defendant.
explaining the sentence to
§
EL
10:
SENTENCING ACT
case,
judge
still should
In such a
shall, in addition
sentencing judge
The
sentence, both
explain the basis for his
required by this
making
findings
to
reviewing court
for transmission to the
act,
of the ba-
make a brief statement
appeals
in the event that the defendant
he im-
for the sentence
sic reasons
au-
to corrections
and for transmission
If
is a commit-
posed.
the sentence
the sentence
in the event that
thorities
ment,
shall be
copy
of the statement
The manner
involves a commitment.
department or institu-
forwarded to the
made is
should be
which this statement
tion to which the defendant is commit-
that it
intentionally
open
left
in the belief
ted.
develop the
judge
for each
to
should be
§
Compare CAL. PENAL CODE 1203.01.
to
his own
efficient method
suit
most
Occasionally,
prose-
the comments of the
working habits.
cuting attorney
are included
such
course,
of rea-
Finally, of
a statement
transmission,
sentencing
both
where
aid to the
be invaluable as an
sons will
sentence,
see
fixes the minimum
fact, it is difficult to
reviewing court.
§ 176.180(3)(1961),
NEV. CODE ANN.
occur,
meaningful
can
how
review
see
Authority performs
and where an Adult
cases, where
except perhaps in extreme
that function.
PENAL CODE
See CAL.
completely
left
appellate court is
§ 1203.01;
ANN.
WASH. CODE
why
sentence under
dark as to
§§
(1961); Hayner,
9.95.031-32
Sentenc-
imposed.
Cf. Kent United
review
Board, 23
by an Administrative
541, 561,
States,
86 S.Ct.
383 U.S.
477, 478-82,
PROB.
LAW & CONTEMP.
(1966).
practice
It is the
BISTLINE, Justice, dissenting. might where reasonable minds differ. Toohill, supra. State In view of the I. committed, serious nature of the offense Improvidently Dismiss the Petition as background ap- the character and Granted pellant, and the court’s consideration of Idaho, through State the office of rehabilitation, the need for the State sub- attorney general, petitioned this Court mits the resultant sentence in the at case Ap- to review the decision of the Court of ap- bar is reasonable to the extent it peals 12, 1983, July which issued on State peared necessary at the time of sentenc- Nield, Idaho v. 105 Idaho 666 P.2d ing accomplish primary objective (Ct.App.1983). The Court of protecting society, and to achieve the being stated the issue before it as whether deterrence, goals related rehabilita- adequately the district court stated reasons tion, applicable or retribution to this imposed for the sentence and whether that case. Because no clear abuse of discre- sentence was excessive. That court con- appel- tion has been demonstrated ten-year cluded that the sentence was not lant, imposed by the sentence the district It further an abuse of discretion. conclud- appeal.” court should affirmed on be judge’s the district “oral state- ed that Brief, Respondent’s pp. 17-18. record, on the were sufficient ments made requirement.” satisfy the Tisdale Nield, appellant, Nor did the raise as an Tisdale, issue contention that an oral statement (Ct.App.1982). reasons, record, made on was not procedure. sufficient As an Issue Present- proceedings issue drawn in There was no Appeal, ed on Nield listed: “II. DID THE in this case that the reasons for the below ADEQUATELY should SENTENCING JUDGE particular sentence have been incor- THE THE separately findings. into drawn In SET FORTH ON RECORD porated fact, of Idaho itself relied on REASONS FOR IMPOSING A TEN-YEAR the State argue SENTENCE.” The brief went on to tioned this Court for review—notwithstand- only prevailed that: had the Court of notwithstanding issue Reporter’s Transcript
“The contains attorney general request would pages three and one-half of the court’s raised, this Court to consider not had been concerning comments for im- the reasons preserved. A principle thus posing ten-year term so well-es- indeterminate (R. prison 54-56). tablished as to be pg. sentence. unneedful of citation is court, (one early against including court noted an that an ‘rebellion authority’. think) supreme The basis for this conclusion would like to a state’s court, essentially testimony will de- not consider issues in the ab- stract, concerning running fendant’s father certainly not issues which are away age at home attempted very sixteen. to be raised for the first age The trial court also at noted that only: time. The Petition for Review stated defendant twelve the was seduced an petition ground “This is based on the older then woman and ‘continued that that the Court of has decided a relationship’. The court noted that question probably of substance defendant, prior even to his involvement governing accord with a decision of the sixteen, drugs age with had shown -Supreme the State is responsibility, much and was therefore aggrieved by the erroneous decision of essence, a imma- antisocial. child’s the reasons to turity rationale for an adult’s sen- respondent’s be detailed brief in tence.” *5 review, support petition of this for which Brief, p. Appellant’s 11. 118, pursuant to will be filed Rule Appellate Rules.” Appeals’ opinion The of Court was well-rea- Nield, appellant, only the and soned. the supporting time due brief was filed party aggrieved by affirming the decision single which the which delineated issue the judge, attempt the district made no further attorney general’s lay to office desired be- obtain reduction of his to sentence. fore this Court: “WHETHER THE SU- attorney, obligation, His faithful to his had IDAHO, PREME COURT OF IN ITS PLU- presented contentions to the of Court STATE V. OS- RALITY IN DECISION Appeals. against That court ruled Nield. BORN, # OVERRULED STATE V. That should have been the end of it —both TISDALE, 103 IDAHO attorney. Nield and his (IDAHO 1982).” It repeating APP. bears But, not be an it was to the end. The Court that this was not issue which had been opinion Appeals’ plurality presented the to of Appeals. of mentioned the Court The by Supreme Court for Review opinion issued the Idaho Petition should have been sum- Osborn, in State marily However, denied. as the minutes of (1983).1 reflect, attorney lili The office of the this Court three of members this extra-sensorily grant petition vote general, apparently perceiv- Court saw fit to the op- stayed an ing system that this Court would welcome and so this case in the to the peti- regard accordingly to exert itself in that detriment of other cases portunity set joined ring Huntley’s Only opinion opinion, au Justice Justice Bakes wrote "that in 1. Huntley. only opin Tisdale, by needlessly overruling thored Justice other State ... this separate opinion court, ion in that case was the may doing issued be to that disservice Bistline, J., dissenting. concurring and Nei district courts as well.” 104 Idaho at Shepard Donald ther nor Chief Justice Justice P.2d at 1113. As State’s brief in opinion. Huntley’s son concurred in Justice issue, stating infra, this case concedes result, being Each concurred in result opinion plurality opinion. Osborn was a What- imposed by the court sentence district "The opinion Shepard ever Justices and Donaldson P.2d at is 104 Idaho at affirmed.” writing. had not was reduced Whatever rea- joining opinion son each entertained for not Bistline, J., laboring under the belief that then Huntley set Justice not forth. Shepard Donaldson were concur- Justices presented, assembly especially back line. sole issue on the The State’s where the brief, poor Lynn the Honorable E. reasons advanced is that “Tri- authored best Thomas, Solicitor-General, state, suggests throughout judges the ra- al not know- assigned tionale which itself a in advance which be the State declares eases will party Appeals, guidance no aggrieved the Court of Court of have concerning rule opinion, notwithstanding that the ful- to follow.” Justice ly prevailed Huntley already day therein: has this written that judges comply “Most of our district with
“Although Appeals up- Bar American Association Standards sentence, appellant’s held the the State is [the Relating Appellate Review Sentenc- aggrieved by the circumstance 2.3(c) (1968)] ing, qual- Section and both the rule Court of has announced a efficiency ity judicial system and the of our procedure probably accord with if improved judges be all the con- applicable would decisions of Idaho Su- I.A.R.; 118(b)(2), procedures in preme ducted their con- Court. Rule Osborn, Believing supra. State v. On formance with standards.” the face it, correct, Huntley eminently appears that this court has estab- that Justice fully respecting rule the duties of convinced that the Petition for lished one sentencing, granted, trial been judges while Review should never have set differ- my improvi- forth a first vote is to dismiss it as judges throughout granted. ent Trial dently rule. No matter what the ma- state, knowing in may say today, advance which there is jority do or little assigned to my judges will be the Court mind that district cases doubt our concerning guidance magistrates have no continue to formulate will potential imposing which rule to follow. their reasons for and enunciate in the It if confusion administration will be shame particular sentences. arising opinion from state of influences today’s majority criminal law even doing good reason for the court to which in his law one aggrieved party the right the State an she knows is consider he or conscience question re- presenting important thing to do.
view. II. “Moreover, supervisory the court has is Which Can Be 118(b)(4)[2] Sentence One powers reflected in Rule and A Good Reasonably Explained Rule 120 which authorizes the court Appeals decisions of the Court of review that I see great admiration It is with power This should be on motion. its own today reconsidering that Huntley Justice clarifying of in the interest exercised II, Osborn in and now he authored relating proce important point lawof of embracing a statement view that in the courts.” dure is nec- imposition for of sentence reasons Brief, pp. 7-8. Respondent’s meaningful essary predicate for retreating necessarily also is departed from review. He majority A of this Court majority his with appellate proce- from concurrence acceptable of standards Brewster, 106 Idaho 145, opinion petition. The State granting the dure in (1984), manner, insofar as is concerned P.2d 720 676 aggrieved any not party II, from Osborn plurality statement any standing entirely and was without 1112, at “that pass 104 Idaho at it this Court that request of judicial proceedings far sanctioned or so by Su- for review 2. "Rule 118. Petition (a) as to procedure court call trial preme such ... Court.— power Supreme Court’s the exercise of (b) Granting Review Petitions for Criteria Court____ supervision; Supreme Brief, (4) far p. has so Respondent’s n. 8. Whether the Court accepted and course usual departed from the
671 setting while the forth of for the and reasonability reasons soundness own of his imposition particular of a sentence would decision he Compton as makes it. In helpful, be and is is encouraged, it not Gilmore, P.2d mandatory.” (1977), quoted approval we with Maris, Judge speaking words of Huntley’s today, Justice opinion Anent Third Court Circuit whose gratifying it will be to the bench and trial language was: now bar to know that now are at there “ ‘ purpose “The of that to re- least two members of ac- rule is this Court who knowledge quire judge the trial merit in the to formulate and ABA standards. Adams, findings his articulate of fact con- State v. Idaho and (1978), Bistline, J., of law in urged clusions course of Standards, guidelines of the consideration and 1968 ABA determination of Frankel, part as a case and of his mak- and also decision Criminal Sentences: (1973), Dawson, ing process, may so that he be Law Without Order himself Sentencing, satisfied that he fully 1969. has dealt properly with all the issues in case majori- thing The troublesome about the before he decides it and so that ty opinion today only issued is that it parties involvedand appeal this court on any serve purpose, fails to laudable but is may fully be informed as to the bases Appeals’ destructive efforts ’ when his decision it is made.” perform its sentence function. review 194, 560 Idaho at P.2d at 865.” of reason expect any No one will less from at 663 P.2d at gratuitous slap that court reason of the today it at receives the hand of this Court. Now, just how this Court can adhere to however, Regrettably, goal in its of exhort- cases, doctrine civil it declare judges district to adhere stan- to ABA inapplicable cases, in criminal completely dards, may in a few be frus- instances escapes me. trated, although present I time can- presently bring single mind a district III. have, express, who will not both Rules, A Problem With Two Sets of reasons for a If sentence meted out. in Each One Court? so, the majority accomplish day all
the self-satisfaction gains one court above, brief, from the As noted State’s telling another court that it doesn’t make appears “it that this court has established any rules or set standards. That respecting one rule the duties trial applica- which I wrote in again Osborn II is sentencing, judges at while the ble: set forth a different rule.” fulfilling alleged
“The Court of its existence of two of rules sets *7 by potential function has determined would be State to that it is said the be a the helpful to have before it facts and trial the creation of confusion which will beset judges reasons which motivated the which the district reason the office of —for to reach sentencing attorney general court a rides forth in determina- the manner Quixote In problem. tion. deference to that views of Don to Is court’s combat the problem? is, appellate really as how it will conduct there a of to its The answer review, course, agree, “no, capi- with which I I am not there is not.” Other than Moreover, offenses, persuaded to in the tal sentence the interfere. review will be in appeals province civil has made there Appeals. area of this Court of the Court of Is any why the it clear while one of the reasons reason court which hear will fact and requiring findings appeals court-made sentence should not be to of allowed appellate require it conclusions of law is to aid be furnished with the ration- review, equally sentencing is so Again, another valid reason ale of the court? the judge resounding the that the district can evaluate answer is a “no.” 672 any
If has been higher there confusion relative a priority proper nience than the sentencing, to standards of all of it existed disposition of the individual offender.’ prior Ap- to the the Dawson, existence of (1969) Sentencing at 216. peals, it did An exist. exhaustive his- “This power has the to and tory sentencing of in this Court in is found sentencing system should foster a which Adams, v. 77-82, State Idaho at 577 dispenses justice yet individualized (Bistline, J., dissenting), P.2d 1125-1130 unjustifiable disparity. avoids Whole- following following was forth set heartedly the practice it should endorse summary: having ‘sentencing councils’ of meet in sum, “In we have two lines of cases advance of so the sen- lying by pages side side in the of the tencing may have benefit of first, Reports. Idaho In the the Court peers. the collective wisdom of his Such acknowledges an duty affirmative to understand, procedure, I already a in thorough record, make a review to some use in the Sixth Judicial District.” insist reasoned consideration of Adams, 75, 82, State by all relevant factors (1978) (italics P.2d original) court, modify to im- sentence (bold omitted). (footnote supplied) posed whenever is nec- such modification that, Thus, it is seen without interven- essary injustice in order to avoid to the by attorney of general, tion the office individual or insure the even-handed long prior having appel- to our a two-tiered justice throughout of administration system, late court there were existence State. jurisprudence two in our criminal lines of cases, “The of con- second line on the cases, principles one of which embodied trary, decidedly manifests a hands-off sentence review advocated the Court of approach, puts upon the defendant Appeals. A court which two diver- of clear showing affirmative burden have, course, lines gent of cases does abuse trial court discretion and then go way offense of sorts. It can either veer impossible carry by makes that burden it fancy may its take it. And has done as saying that no abuse will ‘ordinari- such away The same Court which turned so. ly’ long be found so as the sentence Adams appellant experienced no imposed limits stat- is within the fixed reducing robbery an armed sen- trouble ute. years, years from 20 tence myself, problem no “For I have Shideler, Idaho choosing the as the better line of first (1982). appellant sub- Shideler was cases, most in tune the one with Adams authority, line of jected one Constitution and statutes Adams, the other. In appellant role tribunal. this Court’s as an simply year “The observed that two cases, in line of the words second imposed the district court sentence study, Bar de- the American Foundation sen- statutory maximum well within system notes a ‘failure of the to achieve years____” Of course tence three goal equal law.’ justice under Shideler, utilizing the other line was. uncov- system When stands such Court, ignoring that authority, this same ered, likely public ‘it is to undermine well 20-year imposed sentence of crimi- in the administration confidence (life imprison- limit the maximum within And, justice.’ public nal whether ment), “this must exam- declared that court not, system or cannot knows of it *8 each case to deter- ine the circumstances of demoralizing and
help
have ‘severe
but
is
punishment
imposed
the
mine whether
prisoners
on
effects
anti-rehabilitative
594,
Court.
im-
of extended duration
a sentence
a clear
establish
posed, the record must
Tisdale,
gave
Judge
“In
the District
judge’s actions’.
for the trial
justification
sentencing decision.
no reasons for his
was vacated
In that case
sentence
It was
where eases been remanded for have adequate
lack record to facilitate e.g. review. States See United Latimer, (1969 Ohio), F.2d at
v. CA
1288; (1978 Ramos, United v. CA States NY), People F.2d
Home, supra.” Brief, 4-6,
Appellant’s pp. 14-16.
Summary genuine was no
There basis for the attor-
ney Review, general’s no Petition
justifiable grant majority reason for the petition. There no reason for the
majority’s respond failure to to the brief
voluntarily laid before the Court Mr.
Box. There valid exists no reason for this paramount authority to exert its
over Court Appeals in the area of
sentence review. very The answer well
may be that those interested will intervene behalf has—as states,
been done in other cited in Mr. brief, legislature
Box’s where done
that which the Court of fit to saw
do in the sound administration of criminal
justice needlessly heedlessly nullified — by today’s majority. Shelley GAITHER,
William
Claimant-Appellant, INC., IDAHO, Employer, & G EG Jr., Pocatello, for Lyon, E. Kenneth claimant-appellant. Smith, Falls, defend- Arthur L. Employers Liability Mutual Insurance ants-respondents. Company, Surety, Defendants-Respondents. DONALDSON, Chief Justice.
No. 15083. July On claimant William Gaith- Supreme Court of Idaho. allegedly er an injury suffered at work June bumping top the door of his head on frame of Subsequently, a bus. claimant an application hearing filed with the seeking Industrial workmen’s Commission