*1 Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent STATE of RHOADES,
Paul Ezra Defendant-
Appellant. Nos. 18285. Idaho, Supreme Court of Falls, September Term. Sept. 12, 1991. Rehearing Sept. Denied 1991. *3 grounds for a
should have been mistrial. legislative
II. Whether the abolition of mental condition the defense the Ida- in criminal cases violates ho or United States Constitutions. the trial court’s failure III. Whether pretrial ruling on the to make a statutory constitutionality of the insanity defense abolition of the *4 was in error. prosecution’s failure IV. Whether exculpatory to turn over evidence reversible error. constituted trial should Whether the court V. testimony by jail- a have excluded house informant. inculpatory statements VI. Whether police by made Rhoades to the suppressed. should have post convic- VII. Whether accelerated capital cases procedures tion
are unconstitutional. erroneously court Whether
VIII. impact victim state- considered ments. Whether the death IX. Parmenter, Blackfoot, for de- N. David imposed. properly
fendant-appellant. in com- the court erred X. Whether Jones, Gen., Lynn Atty. E. Thomas Jim expert pre- to pelling a defense Gen., Boise, plaintiff-re- for (argued), Sol. report to pare or submit a written spondent. prosecutor an interview testifying. before McDEVITT, Justice. its Whether the trial court abused XI. from the of Sta- This case arises murder denying a motion discretion Ezra has been cy Baldwin. Paul Rhoades the at- continuance to allow for separate cases. in three murder convicted forensic of the defense's tendance Susan Michelbacher For the murders of expert. Baldwin, Stacy Rhoades was sentenced
and Proportionality of the sentence XII. death, Nolan for the murder of to imposed. life he received indeterminate Haddon I. plea. conditional based on a sentence Stacy Baldwin February On BY JUROR PREJUDICIAL STATEMENT store the convenience was abducted from court that the trial Rhoades asserts Blackfoot, working near she was where of a granted mistrial a because should have taken to a secluded Idaho. She was then allegedly made prejudicial statement died several times. She location shot jury was to After the juror another. one later. hour and a half approximately an Bingham selected, a sheriff from deputy appeal are: presented this The issues signed a state County came forward juror stating he overheard one ment prejudicial a statement I.Whether juror prejudicial remark another juror another make by one made enacting dep- repealing 18-209 and I.C. during jury process. selection I.C. § 18-207(a), “[mjental provides that which special proceeding outside uty testified in a § any condition shall not be a defense during presence jury, charge of criminal conduct.” eight away six to feet from recess he was say, jury juror he heard a box when trial, case, prior defense “you just look at him and tell that he’s can “Request for Declaration counsel filed a guilty.” 18-207, I.C., the that the Enactment of § 18-208, 18-209, I.C. and the Repeal of this, learning trial court Upon §§ 12(g), Repeal of Rule I.C.R. are Unconstitu inquiry into the undertook an extensive urged that the tional.” It was abolition permitted matter. Counsel was to examine deprives criminal defendants of the defense length. ques- deputy sheriff at Several process rights the state and due under concerning accuracy tions were raised federal constitutions. perceptions. supposed of his remark name, not mention the defendant’s did argued parties extensively Both the issue deputy any conver- sheriff did not hear is, there justiciability; that whether sation either before or after the statement showing on the record that factual the context in it to indicate which was authority grant would the court the to ren- *5 testimony then from made. The court took ruling declaratory in the of a der a nature Webster, juror supposedly who made the judgment on the issue. Rhoades had been statement, Hinrichs, juror prejudicial by psychiatrist pursuant the to examined a to his However, addressed, request. the remark and all counsel’s the defense whom was indicating the did not introduce evidence jury. other de- members Webster psychiatrist’s conclusions as to whether having nied made the remark. Hinrichs might suffering any Rhoades be from men- having sitting juror denied heard it. The tal defect. it, directly in front of Hinrichs did not hear any juror nor did other or officer in the showing The defense contended that no vicinity. inquired jurors if The court the required unique was under the circum- impartial still to fair and were able be capital stances of a case. defense their deliberations. Hinrichs and Webster jurisdiction asserted that the court did have ability both reassured the court of their to declaratory judgment, to render a in that impartial jurors judge fair be and to declaratory judgment the nature of a is to solely presented. the case on the evidence clarify legal uncertainty, having no testimony, Based on this the trial court legal insanity impossi- of made it definition denied defendant’s motion for mistrial. psychiatrist opinion render an ble for a to legally insane. on whether Rhoades was
Appellant has failed to the show that denying court abused its discretion in the argued if The defense further that even support motion. The record does not the showing required, prosecu- the some was any necessity contention that remark was made that had the tion and the court waived prejudice preliminary the defendant. The trial evidence on presenting would of finding supported by court’s the evi- Rhoades’s mental condition when a defense dence, accordingly, request psychiatric the assistance at state we hold that for expense granted prelimi- the prejudiced by jury not mis- without defendant was nary showing required. The defense ar- a mistrial. conduct and was not entitled to
gues constituted a of that this waiver showing might required in the later that be II.-III. request ruling for a on the existence of the THE IN- LEGISLATIVE ABOLITION OF insanity defense. AND PRETRIAL SANITY DEFENSE urged Finally, the defense that there was THE
RULING ON
AVAILABILITY
showing
a sufficient factual
on the record
THE INSANITY DEFENSE
OF
bring
sanity
Rhoades’s
into issue. Not-
per-
legislature
ing
insanity
that
the
defense is
1982 the Idaho
abolished
where
cases,
lay
by
may
by
it
be established
testimo-
insanity
the
defense in criminal
mitted
during
pretrial
ny,
preliminary
generally
cited the
hear-
the defense
be available
stage of a
ing
arresting
criminal case.
testimony of one of
offi-
the night
cers to the effect that on
Rhoades
However,
require
trial court did not
was arrested he was unstable and incoher-
opinion
expert
an
present
that
defense
ent.
as to
ultimate issue of Rhoades’s sani-
expression
ty.
requested any
court
a hearing
The trial court held
on the
opinion
expert as to whether
insani-
request for a
that
defense
“declaration”
ease,
might
or
ty
in the
an
be an issue
the Idaho statutes were unconstitutional.
raising
assertion
counsel that he was
hearing,
During
inquired
the court
insanity.
the defense
The court did
of any
counsel as to its assertion
mental
concerning
require polished testimony
ex-
defect defense.
cognitive
processes
precise
act mental
Gentlemen,
had the
THE COURT:
I’ve
abilities of
defendant.
It would have
opportunity to read defendant’s brief and
expert
provide
sufficed for
sum-
brief.
I’ve
had the
plaintiff’s
also
also
opinion,
mary
stating that in his
affidavit
Judge
opportunity to review
detail
insanity
there was
in-
a viable issue
memorandum decision he entered
Boyle’s
Alternatively,
volved
the case.
ex-
Falls,
case in
companion
in a
pert might
an
have submitted
affidavit
I’ve
where the same issue
raised.
impossible
effect
that it would be
the Montana
and also
looked at
cases
opinion
guiding
him to render an
without a
argue.
you
my
It’s
under-
those cases
legal
option might
Yet
standard.
another
Parmenter,
standing,
your
Mr.
client
opinion
to offer
on the defini-
based
time tender
defense of
does not at this
place
had in
insanity
tion of
that Idaho
insanity?
prior
repeal
legislative
de-
*6
Well,
DEFENSE ATTORNEY:
that’s
fense,
to an
restricting the affidavit
in
correct,
primar-
Honor. And
Your
that’s
protect the
camera
in order to
de-
review
the status
the law.
ily because of
of
consequences
premature-
of
fense from the
saying is that if
that
we’re
we had
What
ly offering
opinion
improperly
from an
an
from,
might
elect
we
elect. But
law to
prepared
expert.
defense
time,
point in
correct.
as of this
that’s
trial
the record
The
court found that
did
Okay. If
the cor-
THE COURT:
that is
controversy to sup-
not create a justiciable
situation,
insanity
there is
rect
...
no
repeal
port
ruling
a
the issue of the
of
on
I
it
tendered. Then must look at
defense
insanity
agree.
the
defense. We
an
presents
that
issue that is
as a matter
declaratory
The
a
authority to render
court
because the defense
before
is
statute. The De-
judgment
bestowed
actually
claimed. We’re
has never been
Act,
in
claratory
contained
Idaho
Judgment
dicta,
area
get
into the
of
or
asked
12,
10,
jurisdiction
tit.
ch.
confers
Code
perhaps
speculation
this matter.
upon
option
to “declare
courts
nothing
indi-
before
court to
There’s
relations,
status,
legal
rights,
and other
raised,
has
insanity defense
cate an
is or could
or not further relief
be
whether
upon
act
it.
or the court should
important
An
claimed.” I.C.
10-1201.
§
request
denied the defendant’s
The court
that,
jurisdiction is
“a
upon
limitation
this
for a “declaration.”
declaratory
only
rendered
judgment can
be
justiciable
or
in a case where an actual
difficulty
of the defense
perceive
We
controversy
Harris v. Cassia
exists.”
opinion
obtaining
expert
an
on such a
988,
County, 106 Idaho
guiding
frame-
complex issue without
(1984).
concept precludes courts
This
recog-
legal standard. We also
work of a
purely hypo-
deciding
from
cases which are
opinion
men-
psychiatric
on the
nize that a
advisory.
thetical or
criminal
tal
of a defendant
a
condition
very
by their
na-
long
Declaratory judgments
forged by
process
a
of interac-
is
case
purely hypo-
defense,
ride a
line between
ture
fine
expert and the
tion between the
actually
questions and
or academic
process
that
will not
thetical
the result of
and that
justiciable
relief;
Many
may
right
cases.
courts have noted
it
tive
relate to a
that
justiciability
suscepti-
that
test of
is not
only yet
has either been breached or is
formulation,
any
ble of
mechanistic
but
dispute or a status undisturbed but
grappled
according
must be
with
to the
but,
endangered;
or
in either
threatened
specific facts of each case. Harris v. Cas-
event,
it must involve actual and
County,
sia
ments at 697. This § 210, 217, 52 P.2d adopted following language from the case, present In the there are no actual Supreme United States Court’s definition existing facts on the record. justiciability guiding as a standard in the court, record before the trial and before declaratory judgment context of actions: Court, nothing contains more than the A “controversy” in this sense must be statement of counsel that he desired to appropriate judicial one that is deter- defense, inquire viability into the of the justiciable controversy mination. A is although Rhoades had been examined distinguished thus from a difference or by psychiatrist, a opinion any no form as dispute hypothetical of a or abstract to Rhoades’s mental state could be forth- character; from one that is academic or coming provided opera- unless the court an controversy moot. The must be definite legal insanity. tive definition of concrete, touching legal relations testimony Rodriguez of Officer con- parties having legal adverse interests. cerning night Rhoades’s manner on the It must a real and substantial contro- his arrest likewise does not suffice to cre- versy admitting specific through relief justiciable controversy ate on the issue of character, a decree of a conclusive as insanity. during pre- The officer stated distinguished opinion advising from an liminary hearing night on upon hypotheti- what the law would be arrest: cal state of facts. Where there such a Paul acting Rhoades was either as if he admitting
concrete case
of an immediate
high
narcotic,
on some kind of
or he
legal
definitive determination of the
high
on some kind of narcotics ...
rights
parties
adversary pro-
*7
really
stability
he
didn’t have much
...
ceeding upon
alleged,
judi-
the facts
the
he
helped
swayed
had to be
to walk. He
may
cial function
appropriately
be
exer-
down,
back and forth
he sat
when
almost
although
adjudication
cised
the
of the
stupor.
say
a drunken
Didn’t
too
rights
litigants may
require
of the
much,
did, mumbled,
and when he
he
as
process
the award of
payment
or the
of
if,
it,
I would take
he was not in control
damages.
senses____
of his
Haworth,
Aetna
Ins. Co. v.
300 U.S.
Life
227, 240-41,
461, 464,
57 S.Ct.
appointment
psychiatric
had
Supreme
including,
County
expense.
quest,
Bingham
The United States
“[a]ll
68,
Court,
Oklahoma,
City
reports”
in Ake v.
rela-
Blackfoot
Police
and/or
(1985),
84
held
105 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d 53
tive to the Baldwin case.
constitutionally
the defendant
enti-
is
to the
Part of the materials submitted
ex-
psychiatric
tled to
assistance at state
supplemen-
exchange
defense
was a
pense
preliminary showing
once a
has been
by
of
tary police report
Detective Newbold
that the
of the de-
made
mental condition
de-
Department,
the Blackfoot Police
which
likely to
in the case.
fendant is
be an issue
the confession of Kevin Buckholz
tailed
urges
acqui-
counsel
Defense
Stacy
had
killing
of
Buckholz
Baldwin.
prosecution
by
escence
and the court
by
Police Officer
arrested
Blackfoot
appointed expert
for a
the motion
court
14, 1987,
Love on March
for drunk
requiring
showing
any preliminary
without
report in-
disorderly conduct.
brief
Love’s
condition,
on the defendant’s mental
“killed
that Buckholz stated he had
dicated
required show-
amounts to a waiver of the
Later,
mini
he
girl
at the
barn.”
while
ing
disagree.
on the issue. We
holding tank,
initiated
in the
Buckholz
Larry
with
conversation
Officer
Christian.
Justiciability
question
a
following report
filled out the
of
Christian
jurisdiction of the
the matter at
court over
the conversation:
State,
v.
P.2d
716
issue. Baird
574
(Utah 1978);
Bur.
in the
prisoner
holding
Mountain
Farm
tank started
West
[A]
Ins.,
(Kevin Buckholt)
P.2d 706
talking
Mut. Ins. v. Hallmark
561
to me
said
[sic]
put
(Wyo.1977).
problems
It is
that a lack
“had
needed to
axiomatic
he
jurisdiction may
cured means
cause he
function
away
not be
couldn’t
world,”
parties.
Bowl
he
to tell
stipulation
regular
proceeded
waiver
then
Bowlden,
girl
794 P.2d
I
v.
118 Idaho
me he shot a
the back.
den
twice
(1990);
girl
he
Marty,
said “You know
White v.
said what
(1975),
other
mini
P.2d 270
overruled on
from the
barn.” I then asked
one
fire, he
“I
grounds by
Magistrate
many
you
Carr
shots did
said
how
times,
Dish,
I hit her
First
know I shot several
Judicial
don’t
Therefore,
him
this defense
in the
twice.”
I then asked
back
...
“a
gun
must be
kind
he
and he said
argument
rejected.
what
used
think____”
a
I
then said no
mm
‘38’
‘9’
determination
uphold
We
the trial court’s
justiciable
that the record does not create
reported
to Detec-
the incident
Christian
controversy
ruling on the is-
support
Newbold,
who
the state-
summarized
tive
repeal
insanity defense.
pro-
sue of the
report.
report
ment
That
*8
so,
Having
we
reach the consti-
pur-
done
do not
defense counsel for Rhoades
vided to
legislative repeal
discovery
tutional issue
Black-
request
for
suant to
insanity defense.
reports.
foot Police
report
Christian’s
mentions
Newbold’s
IV.
in
report
report,
outlines that
written
However,
nor
neither Christian’s
detail.
EXCULPATORY
WITHHOLDING OF
provided
defense.
report was
to the
Love’s
EVIDENCE BY PROSECUTION
prose-
argues that the
appeal, Rhoades
On
15,1987,
filed a
May
the defense
On
discovery re-
compliance with the
cution’s
asking for
discovery,
request
“[a]ll
inadequate,
in violation
quest was
City Po
County
Bingham
and/or Blackfoot
duty
all excul-
to turn over
prosecutor’s
materials rela
reports
investigative
or
lice
to the defense.
patory evidence
which is
Stacy
homicide
to the
Baldwin
tive
measure
test
which to
Bingham Coun
have
in
alleged to
occurred
?
is the
duty to
evidence
prosecutor’s
filed
disclose
July
prosecution
ty.” On
at
issue.
materiality of the information
Defendant’s
Response to
Supplemental
guid
prosecuting attorney] couldn’t
“materiality”
The determination of
is
He [the
any promises. Nobody ever
the information tends to
ever make
ed
whether
They
guilt,
actually
promise____
make it a
create a reasonable doubt about
did
Brown,
judges
P.2d 880
what
guarantee
couldn’t
State
(1977),
expect
“obviously
anyway____
of such
I never did
otherwise
would do
course,
I
anything
hoped.
value to the defense that ele
out of it.
Of
substantial
requires
my position
in a situa-
mentary
anybody
fairness
it to be disclosed
I think
hope
specific request.”
they’re put
under
even without
United
tion that
would
97, 110,
get
Agurs,
they
States v.
S.Ct.
at least
some favor-
would
2401,
V.
doing
I
in essence
that what was
paying
society.
back a debt to
JAILHOUSE INFORMANT TESTIMONY
The trial court found that this situation
Holm
David
testified at trial con
fact.
did not raise an issue of material
We
cerning conversations he had
de
with the
agree.
they
fendant
while
were
the same cell.
time,
At that
he stated that he had not
Appellant further asserts that
anything
exchange
offered
for his
trial
have excluded David
court should
Later,
testimony.
post
at a
conviction
testimony altogether.
argues
Holm’s
He
hearing, Holm testified that he was dissat
jailhouse
inherently
are
informants
isfied with the sentence he received in his
Holm,
unreliable,
particular,
and that
*9
case, and that had he known the sentence
reputation
had a
for untruthfulness.
receive,
going
he was
to
he
not have
would
We hold that it was not error for the trial
testified at the Rhoades trial.
testimony
court
to admit
the
of David
change
Appellant asserts that
this
is
fact
up
Holm.
It is
to the trier of
to
grounds
disagree.
for a
trial.
new
We
credibility
determine the
of witnesses:
post
hearing,
appellate
may
An
its
At
the
conviction
when
court
not substitute
regarding
thought
judgment
jury
he
he
for that of the
questioned about what
witnesses,
exchange
credibility
weight
the
of
receive
for his testimo-
of
would
testimony,
infer-
ny, Holm said:
their
or the reasonable
reported
be drawn
evidence.
the state-
enees to
from the
Both Shires and Miller
705,
Campbell,
supplemental reports
v.
718-
filed several
State
ment
19,
1149,
(Ct.App.1983).
1162-68
months after
arrest. The statement
also not recorded
Officer Shaw
was
263,
Clay,
731 P.2d
State
report.
his
Rhoades made no further state-
(Ct.App.1987),
denied.
review
ments.
Allowing
grounds
to testify
Holm
is not
argues
appeal
on
that the
Rhoades
this
jury’s responsi-
trial.
It
for a new
was the
those
trial court should have excluded
weigh the
testimo-
bility
credibility
to
of his
(1)
ques-
for three
statements
reasons:
ny.
evidence,
reliability
given
of
tionable
that several
claimed
the fact
officers who
VI.
failed to record
overhear
statements
SUPPRESSION OF INCULPATORY
reports
them in their
until months after the
STATEMENTS
arrest; (2)
police
tape
the failure
(3)
statements;
record the
the state-
Rhoades was arrested March
1987.
ments were the
the violation of
result of
being sought
suspect
He
as a
an
rights.
Miranda
Rhoades’s
investigation,
Idaho murder
his car
when
High-
A Nevada
was identified Nevada.
point,
On the
the defense
first
McIntosh,
Officer, George
way Patrol
process
due
state
argues that
under the
to the scene
two officers from
drove
with
en
requires
and federal
constitutions
Idaho,
Rodriguez
Victor
and Dennis Shaw.
degree
during
guilt
of reliability
hanced
officers, Trooper
Two Nevada
Neville
stage
prosecu
capital
determination
of a
Miller,
holding
Officer
were
Rhoades at
reject
argument.
tion. We
Shires,
officer,
Another
ar-
scene.
Nevada
Supreme
States
has
The United
up.
rived at the scene as back
Shaw testi-
procedural
imposed many
protections for
Rodriguez approached
fied that as he
Ohio, 438
capital cases. See Lockett v.
against
being
Rhoades where he
held
98 S.Ct.
stood them.
there
adequate
is evidence dural
in
are
Mathews
319,
heavily
Eldridge,
893,
that Rhoades was
influenced
v.
424
96 S.Ct.
U.S.
47
arrest,
(1976).
of the
L.Ed.2d 18
narcotics at the time
The three factors
Officer
to be
weighed
(1)
private
searching
per-
Shaw testified that while
are:
the
his
interests at
stake; (2)
interest;
son,
government’s
engaged
he
Rhoades in
the
conversation to
(3)
procedures
the risk that the
used
test
alertness and found
will
his
that he had
lead to erroneous results. U.S.C.A.
capacity to
Const.
sufficient
understand what was
5,
employed
Amends.
14. This Court has
going on around him.
process
this due
v. Ankney,
test
State
sum,
In
Rhoades had been instructed
(1985).
1,
109 Idaho
PROCEEDINGS
present inquiry,
prong
our
is
third
of
test,
Eldridge
Mathews v.
we must
requires
Idaho Code 19-2719
§
determine whether or not I.C.
19-2719
§
cases,
capital
post
relief
conviction
provides
adequate process
prevent
an
to
requested
42 days
must be
within
after
erroneous
ensure that
results and to
death
filed,
judgment
completed
is
within 90
sentences are not carried out so as to arbi-
days
Appellant
that.
urges
after
this
trarily deprive a defendant of his life.
Court to reconsider our decision in
v.
State
Beam,
208,
(1988),
766
requires
P.2d 678
'statute
the defendant to file
which held that
19-2719
petition
post-conviction
I.C.
did not vio
relief
for
within
§
late
rights
days
filing
judgment
the defendant’s constitutional
42
im-
analysis.
equal protection
posing
under
We de
sentence of death. These chal-
cline
do
lenges
judicial
to
so.
arise
proceeding
out of the
just
point,
concluded. At this
counsel has
Defendant also claims that
19-
I.C. §
closely
the case
involved with
for
process rights,
2719 violates his due
which
time,
trial,
present
some
at
has been
Beam did not address. Procedural due
appro-
has had notice of all issues that are
process
per-
issues are raised
whenever
priate
day
be raised within this
limit.
being
life,
son
deprived
liberty,
risks
required
All that
do is
counsel is
governmental
property interests because
organize
challenges
all
and issues that
is
requirement
action. The
that there must
during
appropriate
arose
trial and are
ensure that
process
some
the individ-
appeal
days. That is not
within 42
arbitrarily deprived
rights
ual is not
of his
unduly
The statute pro-
burdensome task.
the state or
violation of
federal constitu-
adequate
vides
notice to the defendant of
requirement
tions. This
met when
him,
exactly
required
what is
suffi-
provided
defendant is
with notice and an
challenges
opportunity
cient
for all
to be
opportunity to be heard. Armstrong addition,
purpose
heard.
In
it serves
Manzo,
380 U.S.
S.Ct.
legislature
by preventing
unneces-
(1965); Mullane
L.Ed.2d 62
v. Central
delays
sary
occur with so much fre-
Co.,
Hanover Bank & Trust
quency
capital
cases.
70 S.Ct.
807
immediately
trial
petition
post-
pro
for
a
se
subsequent petition
second
after
claim,
court for an
assistance
to the district
the
raising
conviction relief
ineffective
only
evidentiary hearing.
through
had
no
omitted
Stuart
but
claim was
which
facts
in the second
own,
learned
the
raised
had not
the defendant
his
fault of
had
petition
the first
petition after
subsequent peti-
his claims and
waived
pursuant to I.C.
19-
We held that
filed.
§
tion
not barred.
was
4908,
petition
not barred.1
second
was
I.C.
19-2719
we hold that
Therefore
§
to
court
hold
necessary
It
for
trial
opportunity to
one
provides a defendant
hearing
if
evidentiary
to determine
challenges
to the conviction
raise all
rights were violated.
Stuart’s constitutional
petition
post-conviction
for
in a
sentence
Dermitt,
Stuart,
cited
v.
In
we
Palmer
except in
unusual cases where
relief
those
591,
(1981)
P.2d
for the
635
955
that
the issues
it can be demonstrated
that,
appropriate
proposition
under the
sole
reasonably
not known
raised were
circumstances,
19-4908 did not bar
I.C. §
within the time
could
have been known
not
'
for
re-
petitions
post-conviction
successive
legisla-
the statute. The
frame allowed
important
it is
to under-
point,
lief. At this
limit the
appropriately
ture
fit to
has seen
important facts.
very
some
stand
bring
to
chal-
time
within which
frame
pursuant
decided
to the
Palmer was
lenges
are known or which reason-
which
provisions
19-4908.
waiver
of I.C.
Sub-
§
process
ably
encom-
should be known.
Palmer,
legislature
to
sequent
enacted
providing for re-
passed in I.C.
19-2719
§
post-
in 1984.
modified
I.C. 19-2719
This
§
Court,
then
by the trial court and
this
view
in death
proceedings
conviction
adequate
present
to
provides
opportunity
19-2719(3)requires a
cases.
Idaho Code §
ade-
raised and to have them
the issues
factual
legal
defendant
“file
or
chal-
to
Therefore,
19-
quately reviewed.
I.C. §
lenge
that
as
the sentence or conviction
pro-
under due
2719 is not unconstitutional
reasonably
known or
should be known.”
analysis.
cess
post-conviction
Idaho Code 19-2719 limits
§
petition
unless it is demon-
relief
one
VIII.
trial judge
to the satisfaction of the
strated
being subsequently
raised
issues
STATEMENTS
VICTIM IMPACT
reasonably
not
should be
were
“known
now turn to the issue
known.” Ineffective assistance of counsel
We
rea-
contained in
impact
is one of those claims that should be
victim
statement
immediately upon
report.
sonably
presentence
Maryland,
known
com-
Booth v.
2529,
in a
pletion
496, 107
of the trial and can be raised
96
440
L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
post-conviction proceeding.2
(1987),
the introduction of victim
prohibits
sentencing
during the
impact statements
reading
A
careful
Palmer reveals
capital
as violative of
phase of a
case
raised an ineffective assist-
the defendant
Eighth Amendment to the United States
corpus
ance of
claim in a habeas
counsel
Booth,
there
two
were
Constitution.
post-con-
petition
as a
petition [treated
in the vic
types
presented
information
subsequent
ap-
direct
viction relief]
con
type
The first
impact
tim
statement.
post-conviction proceeding.
peal and first
description of the emotional
sists of “a
petition
appeal
and first
After
direct
family and the
by the
results,
trauma suffered
produce
de-
failed to
favorable
of the victims.”
personal characteristics
appellate
new
counsel and
fendant obtained
“family mem
type
contains the
This
second
brought
subsequent petition.
opinions
characterizations
had
bers’
held that because
defendant
filed
Deland,
(Habeas
(1988)
Corpus); Bundy v.
not
996
noted that Stuart was
decided
1.
It must be
State,
(Utah 1988);
100
pursuant
I.C.
This statute
Daniels v.
§
19-2719.
In the the court care- ed States Idaho’s, which, provides “stacking” like “duplicating” or zona’s statute fully avoids sentencing judge capital cases is aggravating by a statutory factors and for mitigating unconstitutional. weighs every each and factor not may defendant undisputed that the It X. existing ex- any required to disclose TO EXPERT DEFENSE COMPELLING he intends to use at trial. pert’s report A REPORT OR PREPARE WRITTEN However, say rule does not BEFORE TO BE INTERVIEWED report required make a expert to can be TESTIFYING opposing party. request at the no claims that written Defense counsel hired a The defendant ballistics or requested, received reports have been evi expert hair to examine State’s rule language The clear written. pro expert prepare or dence. The did not re- court to not the trial does authorize reports to the defense. written vide experts prepare to quire the defendant’s prosecutor sought an order from they when reports the State written “provide the the defense to requiring court prepared for the defen- have not been copies reports of examina State with dant. experts ... tions conducted the defense tri Hutchinson, intends to call at whom the defendant 111 Wash.2d at al,” prose alternative to allow the or in the at 450. if experts; cutor to “interview the defense However, this do not believe that we not, yet pre reports or have not are prejudice to the defen- resulted error objected The defense pared____” Hutchinson, case differs from dant. This that the
procedure. The trial court ruled
here,
anticipate
the defense did
because
provide
report
expert must either
a written
having
prepare
report,
told
expert
but
prosecutor
prosecutor
allow
prosecutor that it
be avail-
would
16(c)(2)
pursuant
Rule
him
interview
*16
prose-
until a week before trial. The
able
Rules,
provides:
which
the Idaho Criminal
this would not be
cutor was concerned that
Upon
request
prosecuting
the
written
of
to
enough
in which to use the evidence
time
the
attorney,
permit
the defendant shall
managing
the trial
prepare for trial.
inspect
photograph
or
copy
State
to
court set a deadline for the
procedure, the
reports
physical men-
or
of
or
results
expert report,
the
which was
production of
or
tal examinations and of scientific tests
authority.
within
experiments made
the
in connection with
case,
thereof,
particular
copies
or
within
XI.
possession or
defen-
control
dant,
to in-
which
defendant intends
OF
FOR
DENIAL
MOTION
trial,
troduce in evidence at the
or which
CONTINUANCE
prepared
were
a
witness whom
call
planned
The defendant
to
trial
intends to call at
defendant
witness,
Fox,
expert
to
an
Mr.
counter
reports
results
relate to
when the
or
He
evidence.
was unable
State’s ballistic
testimony of
witness.
prior
The
to attend
to
commitments.
due
16(c)(2) clearly al-
Idaho Criminal Rule
continuance,
a motion for a
defense filed
reports
to
that the defendant
lows access
The defense
which the
court denied.
trial
or
were
intends to introduce at trial
arrangements
made
with
then
alternative
the defendant
prepared by a witness whom
Stuart,
findings
expert, Ned
whose
another
However, in
intends
call at trial.
order-
as Fox’s conclu
covered the same area
ing
expert
prepare
report
a defense
trial,
During the
of the
one
sions.
course
counsel,
an inter-
opposing
or to submit to
care
Mr.
commitments was taken
Fox’s
counsel,
by opposing
the court over-
view
of,
testify.
he
Defen
available
of the
The
stepped the boundaries
rule.
Fox,
he called
dant contends that had
an
Supreme
interpreted
Court
Washington
then have called Stuart.
State would
rule,
discovery
analogous criminal
State
Hutchinson,
Rhoades
that it was
abuse
766
asserts
Wash.2d
v.
deny the
court to
(1989),
situa- discretion for the trial
which involved similar
it resulted
for continuance because
They held
motion
that:
tion.
prejudice
cases,
new,
to the
We
defendant.
dis-
set forth
more definitive
agree.
concerning sentencing
rules
where the
penalty
sought
death
imposed.
to be
grant
A decision
deny
or
a motion for
purpose
The
codify
of this bill is to
into
continuance
is vested
the sound discre
present requirements
Idaho law these
im-
tion of the trial court.
v.
State
Richard
posed
on the states
these most recent
son,
(1973),
imposed
considering
in similar
both
(1983),
United States Court: case, In this Paul Ezra Rhoades kid- napped Stacy Baldwin from the conve- STATEMENT OF PURPOSE working, nience store where she was pickup forced her into a truck and drove Only years ago, fewa the United States attempted her to a secluded he area where Supreme Court made new “rules” con- to attack her. The trial court found that cerning imposition penalty of the death back, fought Baldwin and: for serious crimes. So that we con- Supreme [Fjinally formed with this U.S. as she hands Court was on and knees Constitution, interpretation trying get away, of the federal he shot at her with Legislature pistol. the Idaho enacted in 1973 The shots her first missed present glancing our death Sections 18- and made marks in the snow. 18-4004, Then, Finally 4003 and Idaho Code. his shots hit her. One ricochet- year, Supreme ing lodged last in her United States bullet elbow and one again changed relating through the rules bullet went her back and states, capital punishment through lungs. many her The tread on the —after Idaho, response imprint like as he had acted to its soles of his boots left their Court, previous Stacy, but then he left decision. five walked towards
813 were companion cases which citing to lived for she still alive. She while referring one and proportional, one and half hours facially about to one not at all in the cold. Windsor; then died alone v. Fetterly and State v. State Scroggins; v. Beam and State crime and this defen- v. considering In this State dant, and sim- compared to similar crimes and State v. Sivak. Bainbridge v. State defendants,3 case and the record in this ilar v. Also, my dissent in upon revisiting State findings and conclusions the district court’s is seen as another case which Major, it sentence, we hold that imposing citing. from As to refrain majority should dispro- sentence is not excessive death Beam, cases, Fetterly, and companion portionate. execution; Windsor, awaiting are Sivak suffer Bainbridge will not Scroggins, and XIII. readily enlightenment is fate. Further CONCLUSION 236, 766 115 Idaho at Fetterly, available reviewing the record independently After enlightening are more at 706. Even P.2d describing transcript the character sentencing Kar- at court’s remarks the trial defendant, nature of the crime executed, at 110 Idaho la Windsor convicted, circum- he which has been 1197-99, under 425-27, 716 P.2d at has been stances of the crime of which he Argu- “Findings of Facts and heading of convicted, that there existed we hold Mitigation,” and ment Found in Possible imposing pen- adequate the death basis imposition death concluding with the of the alty. sentence, sen- plus the remainder of the im- judgment entered sentence B Appendix tencing remarks set out Upon of the posed are affirmed. issuance 444, at P.2d at “Sentencing,” 110 Idaho remittitur, a new the district court shall set sentencing For the views 1216. 19-2719(11). execution date. I.C. § following Supreme opin- Court’s judge the sentence of death ion which vacated BAKES, J., WINMILL, Pro C.J. resentencing, I see Part remanded for Tem, concur. 232-33, 115 Idaho Fetterly, v. at of State Justice, BISTLINE, concurring in the at 766 P.2d 702-03. concurring to Part specially result and as XII. sum, Justice it is submitted that first opinion for the Court is a McDevitt’s generally in
Concurring
most
Ad
step in a better direction.
hoc assess-
opinion,
question
propriety
I do
Court’s
(1984);
Pizzuto,
State v.
P.2d 293
Idaho
ments of a concurring murderer’s to live and specially. confinement, concurring perpetual or be executed prior (literally, should eschew all notions parts opin- I in all of concur the Court’s figuratively) proportionality, of in ion, part except (Proportionality), XII has, citation, by which this Court al- rote specially. which I concur McDevitt, indulge. lowed itself to Justice legislature The has directed us to deter- opinion, correctly close of at the ob- “[wjhether mine the sentence of death is Shepard authoring serves that Justice disproportionate penalty excessive or to the opinion,4 the 1983 Creech reviewed several cases, imposed considering in similar both penalty death cases which in time were the crime and the defendant.” 19- I.C. § subsequent to the legislative 1977 amend- 2827(c)(3). legislature copied pro- this of sentencing provi- ment Idaho’s death sentencing vision from death scheme Shepard sions. Justice cited found and to Georgia following enacted in the decision Creech, Lindquist, Needs, and Osborn.5 Supreme of the States United Court Georgia, 238, The 1979 Creech case was distinct from the 408 Furman v. U.S. 92 S.Ct. 2726, case, 33 346 Ann. Shepard L.Ed.2d Ga.Code 1983 Creech and Justice de- 17-10-35(c)(3) (1982). imposi- § tailed the salient to facts which led sentences, tion of death and concluded that Harris, 42-43, 37, Pulley v. Creech’s murder of Dale was on a Jensen 871, 875-76, 29, 104 79 35-36 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d par by with murders committed Os- (1984), Supreme Court differentiated Needs, born, Lindquist. The recitation between proportionality traditional cases having 19-2827(c)(3) which he as proportionality stated to which I.C. § refers: unnecessary.6 reviewed Traditionally, “proportionality” has been high comply It is also time to with our used reference to an with abstract evalu- Idaho put Constitution and the awesome the appropriateness ation of sen- of life decision or death back in the hands particular Looking tence for a crime. tried jurors. of twelve and true It was gravity of the offense and the severi- prior adoption ever thus Idaho ty penalty, imposed to sentences years ago, Just Justice Constitution. three crimes, prac- sentencing for other and to Johnson, 247, v. Idaho Young, Steed jurisdictions, tices in other has 717, (1988), 766 P.2d cited occasionally punishments struck as down Hollingsworth, Christensen disproportionate, inherently and there- (1898), proposition P. for the unusual, imposed fore cruel when that, “art. simply 7 of our Constitution § particular category for a crime or right jury secures the trial it existed ‘as penalty The death all crime. is not in adoption date of the at the of the Constitu- disproportionate in this penalty cases a ” Justice Huntley tion.’ has stated the sense. same, and added that in the context of a proportionality sought review capital jury case the at the time of state- Harris, required by Appeals, the Court of power hood had to decide between the stat- provided numerous state death, imprisonment, life utes of a different sort. This sort of *19 degree the of murder declared the ver- proportionality presumes the review that along His perpetuated,
dict.
views are
disproportionate
death
is not
sentence
own,
Creech,
my
105 Idaho
with
State v.
in the
It
the crime
traditional sense.
375-412,
inquire
purports
at
670 P.2d at
instead whether
476-513.
Osborn,
Creech,
374,
(1979);
362,
102
4. State v.
105 Idaho
670 P.2d
815 disproportionate pen- to the “excessive and penalty unacceptable is nonetheless cases, considering imposed in similar particular disproportionate alty case because imposed con- the defendant.” 110 punishment to the on others both the crime and 387, 1159. The Court victed of the same crime. at 716 P.2d at Idaho said: omitted). (Citations and footnotes considered the painstakingly haveWe Pulley, Supreme In ruled that Court record, doing, and in so have focused man- statutory proportionality review only crime and the circumstances on the 19- by dated statutes such as I.C. § surrounding commission but on the its 2827(c)(3) required by eighth is not characteristics, age, criminal record and Kemp, In McCleskey amendment. Id. v. personal of this defendant. involvement 279, 306, 1756, 1775, 95 107 S.Ct. that the death sen- We must conclude 262, (1987), Supreme Court L.Ed.2d imposed in tence should not have been proportional- statutory
reaffirmed that this
light
following
this case because
constitutionally required
ity review is not
considerations,
ap-
the death sentence as
procedures adequate-
statutory
“where the
plied to this defendant was excessive.
ly channel the sentencer’s discretion.”
original).
(emphasis in
Id.
Recently,
District
United States
Among
by
discussed
the considerations
for the District of Idaho noted that
Court
Scroggins
Scroggins
the Court in
were that
proportionality review is not constitutional-
history
did not have a
of violent criminal
ly required
Pulley
McCleskey
but that
conduct,
proportionality
age
only
his mental
13.8
“make clear that
review
that
may
implemented by
years,
psy-
considered and
under tremendous
that he was
safeguard against
chological pressure,
states as an additional
and that he had failed
arbitrarily
imposed death
sentences.”
develop
responses
mature
to stressful
Paskett,
958,
F.Supp.
388,
Beam v.
960 situations.
Therefore, 410, I conclude that the review Windsor, In 110 Idaho 420- State v. required by 19-2827(c)(3) entirely I.C. is 1182, 1192-94(1985),the § 716 P.2d Court governed by statutory intent of the said: legislature by any and not constitutional penalty imposed Whenever the death is statutory considerations. This intent is re- required is to conduct an inde- Court provisions the other 19-
vealed of I.C. § pendent review of the record to insure apply- 2827 and decisions of this Court the crime and the ... that when both ing the statute. considered, defendant are a sentence of disproportion- death is not excessive or 19-2827(g) provides I.C. that the Court § ate. After careful consideration both preserve “shall collect and the records of defendant, the crime and the we conclude penalty all cases which the of death was imposed of death that the sentence imposed including year from and 1975.” dispropor- excessive and Creech, this case was In 375 n. State aside the (1983), tionate. We therefore set 670 P.2d 476 n. 2 the Court 19-2827(c)(3) together sentence and remand for resen- (g) death read I.C. § tencing. requiring comparison capital “as present.” from to the cases sentenc- concept of individualized 19-2827(a)provides that this Court I.C. § ing firmly entrenched in modern Amer- a death sentence “on
must review maxim jurisprudence. ican The familiar Scroggins, the record.” State v. fit the crime has punishment should 380, 387, (1985), 716 P.2d punish- provide 19-2827(a) been broadened construed I.C. § fit the criminal. With ment should also (c)(3) require independent together to “an *20 mind, focus to this in we now turn our of the sentence on the record.” review individual, outlining as an the defendant the Court concluded that Scroggins, background in in those factors Windsor’s imposed of death that case was sentence The in and character which convince us that trial court described the defendant findings in in this case court in death was this in- excessive considering penalty: the death begin by noting that stance. We Wind- defendant, Caucasian, male was sor, The capital majority unlike the defen- 18,1957. January He is unmarried. born dants, has no formal criminal record nor par- with Until incarcerated he lived his significant history prior criminal activ- ents____ relationship He has a close ity. history is no of violent crimi- There parents, with his two brothers and two nal activity, nor there an indication sisters. possesses any propensity that Windsor Falls, in and raised Idaho He was born toward violence. school, grade He liked but he had Idaho. omitted). (Citation junior high other in and senior interests dropped he out of in The school and school then reviewed other circum- grade. attempted He to enlist in 9th personally, including stances of Windsor forces, rejected the armed was be- but abilities, education, her her skills and her physical problems caused cause experience training, and her troubled child- polio during early his He childhood. problems hood and serious in her home years age, to work ... at 16 but went 422-23, environment. Idaho at in was involved an industrial accident P.2d at 1194-95. tips fingers and of his were cut off. The crime in this trial court described the healed, fingers When his defendant findings in in case of the court consid- with his uncle and his went work ering penalty: the death dry- father and later his brother The wall defen- construction business. The Defendant Paul Ezra Rhoades ... excellent crafts- dant is considered an loitering around conve- observed man. and nience stores Blackfoot his interests The defendant describes watching employ- Falls the female and fishing boating reading as and and “fan- 28, 1987, February ees. On defen- tasy” novels. dant entered convenience [a store] The defendant denies serious rela- Blackfoot, nearby Idaho. as He worked women, tionships ties with or romantic store, drywaller frequented the a and but although he has numerous female evening, only he a stayed on this short His him as friends. mother describes time then left. responsible easy going and a non- midnight gun- he Near returned and at person violent that does hold clerk, point the till and forced robbed looking out grudge and who “never went Baldwin, Stacy age Dawn into his points She out that chil- trouble.” spot pickup and drove her to a secluded him and was a dren liked that he “father just near River off Rose Road the Snake neighborhood image to children” in the attempted Bingham County. He babysat. and those he back, her, fought finally attack she polio The defendant suffered with at trying hands knees as she was on age spent about 4 and considerable time his get away, pistol. he shot her with at illness [hospital]. necessitated her and The first shots missed made many operations on feet that he have his glancing Finally marks the snow. pain and as a and suffered considerable ricocheting shots hit her. bullet result, One is not well coordi- the defendant lodged one bullet in her elbow and went nated. through lungs. her
through her back and lady His aunts and friends describe being very compassionate on the soles of his boots left tread as defendant Stacy, person responsible he and trust- imprint their as walked toward who worthy. still he left while she was alive. but then “being him as for about 1 to hours and friend ... describes She lived One IV2 listen her big can her brother” who then alone the cold. died *21 presence (death and in whose penalty she feels comfort- im- Fetterly 6. State v. posed) able. (fixed im- Bainbridge
7. State life v. posed) He admits that he has abused alcohol (death 8. im- penalty State v. Paradis drugs. and posed) presentence investigation report indi- (death penalty 9. State Sivak im- v. prior cates that Rhoades had a criminal posed; procedural vacated on resisting record that included offenses of grounds; resentencing) remanded for officer, theft, obstructing petit inat- penalty imposed The death by driving, driving tentive suspended, while upheld by trial court and this Court in the against nature, rape, infamous crime kid- majority of these cases. On the murder, basis napping, degree first use of fire- comparison of this these case in which the felony, arm the commission of a second crime was similar to the murder in this degree murder and robbery. case, I find death imposed sentence on by 19-2827(c)(3) As directed I.C. § case Rhoades this not to be or excessive it, this decisions of I interpreting disproportionate. have reviewed im- sentence death The cases I find most similar to one this posed on compared Rhoades this case so far as the defendant is are: concerned penalty imposed in similar cases in (death penalty 1. State v. Pizutto im- which the imposed sentence was posed) later, considering both the crime defendant, to determine whether Rhoades’ (fixed 2. State Searcy imposed) v. life disproportionate. sentence is excessive or (fixed 3. State v. life imposed) Smith reference, For ease of I append summary (death 4. penalty State v. Beam im- compared. the cases I have posed) The cases I find most similar to this one (death Aragon 5. State im- penalty v. so far as the crime is concerned are: posed) (death
1. State v. Pizzuto im- penalty penalty imposed death posed) upheld trial court this Court in a (fixed Searcy 2. State v. imposed) life majority of these cases. On the basis of comparison of these cases in which the (death 3. State v. im- penalty Lankford circumstances of the defendant most were posed) Rhoades, similar to the circumstances of I (fixed 4. imposed) State v. life Smith imposed find death on sentence (death 5. State McKinney Rhoades not or dispropor- excessive imposed) tionate.