State v. Windom

253 P.3d 310 Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent,

STATE WINDOM, Allen Defendant-

Appellant.

No. 36656. Idaho,

Supreme Court of

Boise, August 2010 Term. 16, 2011.

March

Rehearing Denied June 2011. anxiety

diagnosed suffering from and a major depressive disorder with no prescribed ap- He was features. medications propriate to those counselor conditions. His expressed concern that be Windom so, his condi- psychopath, noted that tion was not treatable. killers, was

Windom fascinated serial psychopaths, schizophrenics. Beginning eighth grade, aspects in the he modeled daily protago- life his the habits of carrying Psycho, nist in the movie American school, specific maintaining a briefcase to routine, hygiene using particular brands hygiene products luggage. kept He day planner within which he wrote about “killing] everyone” “see[ing] how” hu- organs day planner man would taste. The figures contained sketched of naked women ways. being gruesome tortured and killed in relationship had an aggressive Windom buying with his mother. He bullied her into expensive personal hygiene products him the he and accessories knew from American Psycho, occupying and intimidated her into their smallest home’s bedroom. He dominat- remaining spaces ed the He the home. repeatedly told his wanted friends that he his father, mother dead. Windom’s Judith’s ex- husband, testified than one that on more occasion, had expressed she fear that Win- slept. dom would kill her as she Molly Huskey, Appellate J. State Public evening January On the Win- Defender, Boise, for M. appellant. Justin experienced a strong urge dom to kill. He argued. Curtis five times his took normal dose of anti-anxi- Wasden, Attorney ety seeking

Hon. Lawrence G. Gen- He medication. considered out Boise, eral, kill, respondent. for M. Lo- Jessica “bums” to mother feared his argued. Instead, stop rello him. would fashioned Windom by attaching weights

a club several HORTON, a dumbbell. Justice. end of He collected two knives and took the club to Judith’s bedroom. Win- appeals Ethan Windom the district court’s placed dom his hand mouth over his mother’s imposition of a determinate life sentence slept and began while she to beat her second-degree murder of mother. his club. face his arms tired When affirm. We weight, from the knives took one of the throat, repeatedly and stabbed her I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL chest, Eventually and abdomen. convinced BACKGROUND dead, Judith was his Windom removed (Windom) “thought Ethan Windom lived alone with hand from what he her mouth” was (Judith). mother, exposed divorced his Judith Windom and thrust the second knife into her 2006, sixteen-year In late old Windom brain. changed expressed then the home’s answer- his belief that Windom “would message to relate that he and with treatment

ing machine recommenda- regardless unexpectedly left tion” of whether he mother had town were incarcer- ated. family He called a friend deal with issues. stating left her a voicemail that he would imposed The district court a determinate morning meet her as was their normal

not sentence, life the permis- maximum sentence attempted He then to hitchhike to routine. second-degree sible for murder. After the eventually father’s house and walked Appeals Idaho Court of affirmed the sen- Upon arriving, told his fa- there. tence, granted petition this Court Windom’s that someone had attacked Judith and ther for review. that she was dead. After Windom’s father police, the Windom was arrested and called II. STANDARD OF REVIEW day, interrogated. Later confessed Upon granting petition for review charged to the murder. He was as an adult decision, Appeals’ of a Court of this Court murder, first-degree eventually pleading with gives serious consideration to the views of charge guilty to an amended of second-de- Appeals, directly the Court of reviews gree murder. Humberger decision of the trial court. v. 41, 39, Humberger, 809, 134 Idaho 995 P.2d incarcerated, he was two mental 'While (2000). imposed by 811 Where the sentence professionals health assessed Windom. limits, statutory a trial court is within first, Beaver, “the Craig psycholo- Dr. a licensed appellant demonstrating bears the burden of tentatively gist, diagnosed suffering him as it is a clear abuse of discretion.” State schizophrenia, paranoid type. from Dr. Bea- Stevens, 139, 148, 217, 146 Idaho 191 P.3d symptoms ap- ver observed that Windom’s (2008). evaluating 226 When a claim that the partial peared to be remission as he was discretion, trial court has abused its the se by antipsychotic stabilized medication ad- first, quence inquiry of our whether the during ministered his incarceration. Dr. correctly perceived trial court the issue as opined Beaver that the murder occurred dur- discretion; second, one of whether the trial break. He noted that re- court acted within the outer boundaries of its demonstrates that individuals search with consistently legal discretion and with the psychiatric change and similar illnesses mod- applicable specific standards choices ify they age, and their risk for future it; finally, available to whether the trial “precipitously” violence diminishes after court reached its decision an exercise of thirty. expressed turn Dr. Beaver concern Ctr., Valley Shopping reason. Sun Inc. v. present that Windom would a threat of vio- Co., 87, 94, Idaho Power 119 Idaho 803 P.2d stop regularly lent behavior he were to (1991). 993, 1000 taking medication. professional, The second mental health Dr. prevail In order to on a claim that a Estess, psychiatrist. discretion, represents Michael is a He first sentence an abuse of days light met Windom few after his arrest. At “the defendant must show time, criteria, governing Dr. Estess viewed Windom as sentence [that the] “acutely psychotic.” any Dr. Estess viewed Win- excessive under reasonable view of the (Charboneau suffering evolving paranoid, dom as from “an facts.” State v. Charboneau II), 497, (1993) psychotic, 499, 67, delusional Dr. illness.” Estess 124 Idaho 861 P.2d 69 opined Broadhead, 141, “entirely prod- (quoting that the murder was State v. 120 Idaho 401, (1991), inappropriate, disorga- uct of 814 P.2d [Windom’s] overruled on nized, Brown, illogical psychotic process grounds by that was other State v. 121 Idaho (1992)). Thus, evolving beyond above and his control.” Dr. 825 P.2d 482 where rea differ, having “per- might Estess viewed been Windom as sonable minds the discretion fectly compliant” respected, with all of his treatment vested the trial court will be Finally, supplant recommendations. Dr. Estess and this Court will not the views of Broadhead, opined “good that Windom was a candidate the trial court with its own. treatment, Thus, inpatient outpatient” both Idaho at 814 P.2d at 405. order 293, 294, Jackson, that, In State v. must establish appellant prevail, 1372, 1373(1997), facts, quoted this Court 939 P.2d view of the any reasonable under following language from the Idaho Court considering objec- was excessive sentence (1) life sen Appeals approval: “a fixed protection punishment: tives of criminal (2) if the of tence be deemed reasonable of the individual society; deterrence (3) egregious that it demands possibility fense is so generally; public (4) of retribution rehabilitation; exceptionally severe measure punishment or ret- deterrence____” Stover, 939 P.2d at 140 and Id. wrongdoing. State v. ribution for Eubank, 927, 933, (quoting State v. 104 P.3d Idaho (Ct.App.1988)). III. ANALYSIS Cannady, v. 137 Idaho In State (2002), Justice Eis 44 P.3d appeal has been Although Windom’s reviewing a fixed life mann wrote: “When court claim that the district framed as a sentence, are primary the factors considered by imposing a fixed life abused its discretion gravity the need to the of the offense and/or sentence, review of his claim reveals careful sup protect society from defendant.” In the relating there is a second distinct issue that statement, to our earlier port of this he cited imposition of legal governing standard Enno, decision State v. sentences, specifically, whether a fixed life significant because P.2d 610 This is may imposed be determinate life sentence following in Enno: of the statement solely the offense. upon based the nature of Although the sentence is a fixed life part argument that the sentence As of his parole, we possibility sentence with no discretion, asserts was an abuse of Windom find in the trial court’s decision. no abuse sentence reflected an that the district court’s Considering the and cruel nature heinous against improper “judicial hedge uncertain capital punishment of the crime and that ty.” question whether a We address the to the trial court as an alter- was available imposed determinate life sentence aggravating circum- native based on the solely egregiousness of the because found, the trial court’s stances were turning our attention to the crime before and within the maxi- decision is reasonable impermissible claim that the sentence was Therefore, statutory mum limits allowed. uncertainty and the broader hedge against we affirm. rep question of whether Windom’s sentence Today at 627. we reiter- Id. at 807 P.2d the court’s dis resented an abuse of district that, cases, appropriate ate a district court cretion. may impose a determinate life sentence egregiousness based of the crime. may impose a deter- A. district court solely upon minate life sentence based did not abuse its B. The district court gravity the nature and of the offense. by sentencing Windom to discretion serve a determinate life sentence. review, suggests that this On Windom lengthy sentencing prelude As to its held, impliedly, expressly Court has not or remarks, explicitly noted the district court alone, standing that the nature of the offense exercising that it its discre- support can a determinate life sentence. We tion, stating: disagree. stated: “To im This Court has I the nature of the of- pose ‘requires high a fixed life sentence have considered the mental degree certainty perpetrator fense. I have considered mitigat- I considered safely could never be released back into soci health issues. have ety aggravating factors. I have con- requires or that the nature offense example, rel- spend mitigation, sidered in that the individual the rest life ” Stevens, 149, 191 the fact youth. behind 146 Idaho at ative I have considered bars’ added) long have a criminal rec- (emphasis (quoting State that he does not P.3d at Cross, say the most And I have to it is ord. (1999)). I had. Ever. It difficult case have ever will be or that he just pic- Not will will haunt me forever. you proper and what did receive the care or that the medi- of the crime scene tures mom, entirety against cations will continue to work some your but the of the case. potential Society victim. deserves better particularly difficult in this case It that. than out, because, prosecutor] pointed I [the Fixed life is—it is one of the presented with four different mental harshest am report, that we hand diagnoses presentence sentences can down and it’s health profession- reserved for those offenses that are or four different mental health so egregious that it an exceptionally als who have had contact with Mr. Windom demands retribution, high to either a measure of at various times who have come prognosis. diagnosis or a different evidence indicates that the offender cannot different successfully society be monitored in to re- then conducted an extended ex- The court duce the risk to those who come in contact relating amination of the evidence Win- imprisonment with him and that until including differing dom’s mental health only way death is the to insure that we are diagnoses pro- reached the mental health protecting society. my view that is the prior who worked with Windom fessionals ease here. later, who saw him the murder and those ... [This is so brutal murder] and so of the murder and circumstances Windom’s heinous that I believe that a fixed life crime, following including behavior appropriate. sentence is I do not do that during manner in which he conducted himself only lightly. I have on one other occasion law the interviews with enforcement officers given fixed life and it was for these similar the content of his statements to investi- and reasons. gating officers. The district court concluded: comments, profes- I mental don’t know which health From these it is evident that right. agree I the district court sional has it But tend to was conscious of our earlier prosecutor], assuming holding [the that Dr. that a fixed decisions life sentence may appropriate Beaver and Dr. Estess are correct and Mr. be both when there is a paranoid schizophrenic, high degree certainty is a as Dr. of Windom that the defendant indicated, safety society safely society Beaver re- can never be released into quires couple things. a If Mr. when the nature of [of] Win- the offense warrants such out, safety society, punishment. equally dom is let accord- It is evident that the Beaver, ing requires to Dr. that first he be district court believed that both circum- by professional existed in treated mental health stances this case. Windom asserts really right imposed by who has it and we can have no that the sentence the district thing impermissible “judicial an hedge assurances of that. The second court was actually against uncertainty” argues that he takes his medications that the dis- discretion, they actually noting work that he trict court abused its doesn’t his play crime, expressed youth, with his medications. And I don’t remorse for his his potential willing know that I’m that. his rehabilitative and the trust evidence that his mental illness resulted in the mur- My primary sentencing concern like responds der. The State that the trial court protection society. this is Mental health properly considered each of the professionals guarantee cannot that Ethan may factors and reasonable minds differ as compliant Windom will be or his medi- to its conclusion that a determinate life sen- cations will work or that he will under be Thus, tence was warranted. the State con- proper jail treatment. We know in he has cludes that the sentence cannot be deemed to continued to titrate his medications. We represent an abuse of discretion. know that he was not before he entered incarceration. We know that he is imposed by 1. The sentence the district still isolated from others. know that We represent impermis- court did not an he has continued on occasion to have bad judicial hedge against sible uncer- thoughts jail. even while in know that We tainty. reason —we know that he is com- pliant recognized being because medications are This Court has the effect of a injected. gamble I cannot determinate life sentence: “Absent an exeeu- (an well-regarded profession- health two mental judi- event which tive commutation assume), a de- predict nor ciary poten- neither regarding can Windom’s rehabilitative als will be a fixed life sentence given fendant tial, heavy judge it was the who bore Eubank, dies.” she] imprisoned [or until evaluating whether Windom would burden of Thus, P.2d at 928. 114 Idaho at actually comply program- with rehabilitative sentence, the defen- receiving such after programming would ming whether such to dem- opportunity have the dant will never risk of future violent behavior reduce his behavior, rehabilita- good successful onstrate acceptable Although level.1 Windom mitigating factors that other tion or opinions, the rely heavily on these the dissent that the de- parole commission persuade the engaged lengthy trial court in a discussion safely released into the com- may be fendant casting evidence doubt that other led this Court munity. These considerations potential re- possessed the rehabilitative unique fixed life employ a standard and, doing, adopted the in so we Bea- opinions sentences advanced Drs. flected “a fixed life Appeals’ statement that Court of ver and Estess. regarded judicial as a not be sentence should court’s comments reflect district contrary, uncertainty. against To hedge wholly accuracy persuaded of the it was not regarded ... be as a life term should fixed diagnosis schizophrenia, high degree of their shared requiring a of certain- sentence ty certainty that the nature of the crime paranoid type. The trial court discussed the — perpetrator incarceration until the demands differing diagnoses earlier treat- of Windom’s certainty perpetra- that the prison, dies in professionals mental and the “ten- health life, never, any time in his could tor diagnosis by Dr. Beaver. tative” advanced Jackson, safely released.” 130 Idaho at 294- Eubank, opinions considering the that Win- (quoting at When 939 P.2d 1373-74 929). 638, 759 P.2d at Focus- 114 Idaho at product the of a dom’s crime was language, and the dis- ing on this Windom break, differing the the trial court considered argue that the district court’s sentenc- sent treating men- diagnoses of Windom’s earlier demonstrate that the sentence ing comments evi- professionals tal health as well as the impermissible “judicial imposed reflects this planned dence that had and looked Windom uncertainty.” hedge against For to the murder of his mother. forward Jackson, at 939 P.2d at murder, intimi- preceding months the he had quoted portion a of the this Court her, forcing and bullied her to move dated regarding following from Eubank statement while he dominat- into the smallest bedroom certainty required imposing before a the spaces in He drew ed the other their home. life sentence: fixed images day planner graphic in his of tortured Unfortunately, making these determina- told and even his broth- women. He friends tions, judge complete information has and that he despised er that he his mother regard to retribution and deter- wanted her dead. Windom was so brazen rence, the nature of which are based on victim— that even his mother —his eventual the offender the offense. The character of father that she feared he told Windom’s may completely known because it is not might slept. kill The trial her while she judge attempt evolve over time. The must suggesting that Windom court cited evidence response predict the defendant’s future symptoms the of mental illness programs degree and the had studied to rehabilitative society if might pose of risk he eventual- guise if and believed he could use them as ly released. During with the law. he was ever trouble 759 P.2d at 929. that police, Idaho his interviews with he mentioned symptoms of had researched the schizo- he case, although the trial court had In this by pressed when an officer including opinions phrenia, the of evidence before it Legislature judicial discretion. The view that the exercise of 1. We do not share the dissent’s responsibility power parole the potential authorities has conferred future action judicia- upon analysis impose ought determinate sentences to be considered in the ry, including life imposed determinate sentences. propriety fixed life sentence of a part being’s likely about whether “another of Ethan” killed man future behavior. The real- mother, “MPD, laughingly replied that ity is that a sentencing judge will never disorder, multiple personality don’t work.” possess sufficient information about the de- Additionally, appeared it mod- character, fendant’s life circumstances and prior eled some of his conduct to and after past project behavior so as to future behavior the murder in the likeness of the serial-killer unerring accuracy. contrary, To the protagonist from a movie called American factual determination of the defendant’s Psycho. upon Based the district court’s sen- probability of always re-offense will be based comments, tencing it evident that the court upon limited data. extraordinarily This diffi- reject possibility did not that Windom cult task is made more difficult because it is believed that he could mimic the brutal mur- merely one factor to by be considered Psycho ders committed the American sentencing judge a subordinate consid- —and protagonist punishment by and evade sim- Moore, eration at that. State v. ulating a mental illness. The court also not- 359, 363, (1956) (“Reha- logic, responsiveness, ed that Windom’s bilitation is not controlling consider- during demeanor the several interviews in ation____The is, primary consideration following sugges- the hours the murder were be, presumptively always good will order actively tive Windom not have been protection society.”). psychotic. The trial court further noted that even Sentencing is less a science than an Windom did suffer from treatable mental Judges art. uncertainty face a different condition, expert opinion health both and the principle physicists: they than must make a course of Windom’s treatment indicated finding factual probability of future the condition of his illness and his treatment criminal behavior upon based limited data. regime require oversight. would meticulous doing, they In so draw their accumulat incarceration, During Windom’s medication experience. ed precisely It is because of the titration, regime required monitoring difficulty fashioning objectively appro efficacy adjustment, appropriate its sev- priate sentence that adopted this Court has eral times. The Court noted evidence deferential sentencing standard of review of record that Windom was resistant to recom- case, decisions. In this essentially Windom mendations of Dr. Estess and others that re-weigh asks this Court the evidence integrate juveniles “go other out presented to the district court and reach a yard into the and exercise” so that prospects different conclusion as to his for could evaluate his behavior. The district rehabilitation. It is evident that the district murder, court observed that before the Win- court did not appropriate believe that it was dom had prescribed abused medications responsibility to abdicate its to conduct its by adjusting dosages treat his mental health own assessment of Windom’s mental condi combining them with other substances. upon tion based the evidence before it Although pointed counsel and to defense out that reservation, accept, Windom had without phar- opinions been with his the of incarcerated, macological regime while the promises two doctors who offered of Win strong court did not consider this to be a complete dom’s rehabilitation. If we were compliance indication of his future with the acting sentencing judges, may we well requirements imposed by pro- mental health suggests, have done as the dissent Rather, pointed fessionals. the district court placed greater weight opinions on the of Dr. compliance merely out that Windom’s was Beaver and Estess than did the district passive receipt by way the of medication However, reweigh court. our role is not to injection. court; by the evidence considered the district our role is determine whether reasonable The task of is a difficult one. minds could reach the same conclusion as did evaluating prospects When the defendant’s rehabilitation, standard, Applying the court. judges trial district this are asked to probabilistic make a determination of a hu- we can find no error in the district court’s He then slitting her throat. lungs unrea- before represented an finding that Windom deliberately exposed in brain. dangerous behavior.2 left a knife her risk of future sonable only ferocity such that The of the attack was offense, of the of the nature 2. In view exposed for of Judith’s arms could be one in the district find no error we can viewing her funeral. The circumstances at the nature of court’s conclusion find that are such that we cannot this offense a determinate offense warranted in its conclusion that the district court erred life sentence. so hei- was “so brutal and Windom’s offense 111(A) in Part discussed life sentence. As to warrant a fixed nous” as to our to adhere opinion, we continue this gravi nature and that the earlier statements that the Windom has failed to show 3. may, standing ty underlying offense of the abused its discretion district court alone, justify a determinate be sufficient by imposing fixed life sentence. from Eubank language The

life sentence. suggest preceding discussion Jackson, adopted by this Court purely the district court’s sentence makes clear an P.2d at at pros- product of considerations of Windom’s considerations of socie important point: The and the nature of the pects for rehabilitation general are deterrence tal retribution not the ease. crime he committed. This is unique char the basis of the not decided on Rather, opinion reflects the structure of this offender; rather these con acteristics of the presented appeal on and the rea- the issues decided the characteris siderations are view, Eubank, In soning by advanced the dissent. our See tics of the offense.3 (“a re- sentencing comments judge has com the district court’s 759 P.2d at 929 (1) understanding regard to retribu an of the discretion- plete information flect: it; (2) deterrence, recognition on the ary tion and which are based decision before offense.”). (3) contrast, discretion; recognition consid nature of boundaries of its prospects legal defendant’s for re application governing erations of the stan- habilitation, (4) dards; the correlated consideration reasoning which the specific protection and deterrence societal its decision. As indi- district court reached by the characteristics are to be determined of the standard of cated our statement case, trial court of the offender. In this review, discretionary examine the actions we brutality it of the murder discussed when whether of a trial court in order to determine egregiousness of the offense. considered requirements have been satisfied. these viciously sleeping beat his mother the district Windom claims with the club that he had fashioned the head by applying its discretion court abused longer purpose, until he no could for that the reasons legal erroneous standard. For hand covered her determine whether his 111(A) 111(B)(1), supra, set forth in Parts found Responding mouth. officers Judith’s be without merit. Dis then we find this claim to unrecognizable. face to be Windom essence, believes that repeatedly, deliberately tilled to its the dissent stabbed his mother placed greater the trial court should have attempting to stab her in the heart and the Louisiana, 407, (quoting Kennedy heavily upon v. 554 U.S. 2. The dissent relies Graham v. Flor- 525, — 438, 2641, 2660, ida, U.S.-, 2011, 550 128 S.Ct. 171 L.Ed.2d L.Ed.2d 130 S.Ct. 176 (2008)). Simmons, 551, (2010) In view of this clear line of demarca- Roper U.S. tion, necessary appropriate to 1183, (2005) it is neither nor support 125 S.Ct. 161 L.Ed.2d 1 of review confuse our well-established standard of conclusion that the district court abused sentencing decision selective of a trial court’s discretion. We believe this reliance be its application de- of statements found decisions misplaced inasmuch as both decisions rested protec- fining scope Eighth of Amendment Indeed, Eighth upon when Amendment. tions. considering imposed upon a defen- the sentence crime, dant who was under 18 at the time of his 2, recognized expressly supra, ''[t]here Graham forth in footnote 3. For the reasons set violent consid- line 'between homicide and other serious find dissent’s reliance cases we ” - against ering Eighth in the context of individual.’ U.S. at Amendment issues offenses -, misplaced. capital litigation to be 176 L.Ed.2d at 842 130 S.Ct. at weight upon age, tainty mental health whether Ethan Windom’s over could be rehabili- mitigating justification and other factors. Our tated as a issues for the fixed-life sen- (nor Second, require not tence. it did standard of review does not exercise reason indeed, ignored overwhelming when it permit) does it us to conduct our own medical evi- someday dence that Ethan weight given safely to be each of could evaluation be (societal society. released into pro- considerations tection, deterrence, general specific de- prospects fendant’s for rehabilitation and so- Applied 1. The District Court an Incor- retribution) in order cietal determine Legal by Using rect Standard a Life agree

whether we with the district court’s Hedge Against Sentence aas Uncer- Although conclusion. reasonable minds tainty “rightness” differ as to the of the district sentencing, justified At the district court court's factual conclusions as to Windom’s by stating the fixed-life term that Ethan will prospects for rehabilitation and whether the always attention, psychiatric need but that it nature of his crime warrants fixed life im- is not certain he will be with treat- prisonment, it is manifest that the district ment. product court’s sentence was the of reason. course, Of no court can absolutely ever be short, our task is not to determine guarantee certain or that someone will not agree imposed; whether we with the sentence re-offend, but a fixed-life sentence “should rather, duty our is to determine whether regarded judicial not hedge against be as a has demonstrated that the district Cross, uncertainty.” State v. 132 Idaho imposition court’s of sentence constituted an (1999). 978 P.2d proper abuse of its under the discretion well-estab- apply imposing standard to a life sentence governing lished standards of review such possibility without parole spelled of out decisions. We conclude Windom has Jackson, in State v. 939 P.2d failed to do so. term, “[A] fixed life with its rigid preclusion parole time, good IV. CONCLUSION regarded should requiring as a sentence judgment We affirm the district court’s high degree certainty perpe- ... that the imposing conviction a determinate life sen- never, life, any trator time in his could be second-degree. tence for murder in the safely 294-95, released.” Id. at 939 P.2d at Eubank, (quoting 1373-74 State v. Chief Justice EISMANN and Justices (Ct.App.1988)). BURDICK and J. JONES concur. applied wrong legal The district court JONES, dissenting. Justice W. by requiring standard high Ethan to show a degree certainty that he could be rehabili- Supreme today The Idaho Court holds that someday. tated The district court instead a child with a serious mental illness can required should have the State to show a penalty receive the maximum criminal avail- high degree certainty that Ethan could adult, punish healthy able to even if the someday. not be rehabilitated That Ethan’s spend child must a lifetime behind bars with- guarantee doctors cannot his eventual reha- parole. out a chance following For the enough justify bilitation is not to a fixed-life reasons, respectfully I dissent. sentence. A. The District Court Abused Its Discre- Majority The asserts that the district court by Using Wrong Legal tion Stan- correctly standard, recognized legal this Impose dard to a Fixed-Life Sentence respectfully disagree. Majority I itself on Ethan which, lengthy excerpt cites a over and

Regarding prospects being again, Ethan’s re- over expressed the district court un- habilitated, certainty the district court its poten- abused dis- over Ethan’s rehabilitative First, Indeed, ways. applied cretion in two it throughout ruling, tial. its the court wrong legal repeatedly imposing standard when it cited its uncer- indicated that it was a much more difficult than about rehabilitated is it was unsure because life sentence fully finding as to a function making such a comply would continue

whether Ethan children continue to mature adult. Since prison from dec- if released with treatment they age, actions are develop as “their stated, “I don’t now. The court ades from ‘irretrievably likely evidence of less to be that health path,” “[m]ental have a clear the actions of depraved character’ than are guarantee that Ethan cannot professionals — ———, Florida, U.S. adults.” Graham compliant or his medications will be 2011, 2026, 130 S.Ct. 176 L.Ed.2d proper under that he will be will work or (2010) Simmons, Roper v. 543 U.S. (quoting asserted The district court also treatment.” 551, 570, L.Ed.2d 125 S.Ct. society requires ... that safety of that “the (2005)). greater that There is a likelihood profes- a mental health he be treated first reformed. a child’s criminal character can be really right it and we can who has sional 2026-27, 176 at-, L.Ed.2d Id. 130 S.Ct. at of that. The second have no assurances Moreover, according to Dr. Bea at 840-43. actually takes medi- thing that he is case, report in this individuals ver’s they actually that that work and cations and mental illness tend to become less serious play with his medications. And I he doesn’t aggressive they age, especially as willing that I’m to trust that.” don’t know enter their thirties. say, gamble went on to “I cannot The court will be or that that Ethan Windom unreasonably that The district court held proper care.” These com- he will receive the rehabilitated, especial- Ethan could never be ments, with the overall tone of the combined ly light predict difficult it is to a of how ruling, that the court’s demonstrate district First, juvenile’s potential for reform. Ethan Eth- resolving uncertainties about court was accepted responsibility for his actions. He him, potential against an’s rehabilitative pled guilty second-degree murder. At to focus on while the correct standard is sentencing, acknowledged that he was proved the State he cannot be reha- whether ill, treatment, mentally that he needed bilitated. murder, and that he was accountable for the sorry he was for what he had done. applied the district court an incor-

Because standard, legal rect it abused its discretion. Second, overwhelming that the evidence is rehabilitated, Byington, See State v. someday safely Ethan could be (1999) (holding that arrest, Shortly in the future. after his Ethan legal apply must the correct district court placed permanent regimen of anti- on a standard). mentally ill sending A court a Ethan’s social worker medications. prison child for the rest of his life without improvement jail observed a marked parole a chance at should be more certain of symptoms following Ethan’s over the months decision. that, time, its Ethan and noted after short requesting

began reporting problems or Applied Legal 2. Because It an Incorrect necessary. changes in his treatment when Standard, the District Court Did Not arrested, being After Ethan was examined Concluding Exercise Reason in That Craig by Dr. Michael E. Estess and Dr. W. Ethan Could Never Be Rehabilitated personally Beaver. Dr. Estess treated Eth- and, psychiatrist at the By failing the correct as the in-house legal to follow stan- Jail, dard, unreasonably ignored County was disinterested in the the district court Ada Similarly, staggering body showing of evidence outcome of Ethan’s sentence. Beaver, Dr. is no reason to believe that good candidate for rehabilitation. there initially regarding psychologist fixed who was chosen Applying our well-settled law trial, sentences, competency Ethan’s to stand life the court had to find evaluate any way. Both Dr. Es- utterly potential would be biased in Ethan so lacks rehabilitative prison in can rea- Beaver stated that Ethan would spent that a lifetime tess and Dr. Jackson, good candidate for rehabilitation be- sonably protect society. be a responded antipsychotic well to Finding that a cause he at 939 P.2d at 1373. medication, compliant with his treatment mentally juvenile can never be was ill defendant however, Again, nothing additional care when of treatment. regimen, and solicited the necessary. suggests drug wrote: record that Dr. Beaver Ethan’s abuse be- anything fore the murder was other than a point given Ethan If at some Windom is Further, product of his mental illness. community return opportunity to to argument, the State admitted at oral the fact compliant in his mental health treat- and is drags injected that Ethan’s were did not

ment, very good he does have a rehabilita- willingness all on comply reflect at his to potential. average He intelli- tion has with wrongly treatment. The district court gence, family support, and extensive does proof by finding inverted the burden of any significant drug not have or alcohol yet Ethan had not shown that could com- yet I do not abuse issues. see evidence ply receiving with treatment because he was any significant underlying personality dis- injections types rather than other of medi- appro- orders which would interfere with cation. adjustment, which priate includes mental care, if health he were to transition back thoroughly I am confident that life sen- community point into the at some lengthy with a necessary tence fixed term is distant future. here, point some deserves wholly agreed, opining

Dr. Estess that Ethan parole chance to demonstrate to the board “would be with treatment recom- rejoin society. that he fit is to If Ethan mendations whether incarcerated or whether proves incorrigible to be noncompliant or outpatient in a he was an more liberal set of treatment, certainly with the State should circumstances,” and even recom- social However, confine him for the rest of his life. parole probation any point mended “at or likely due to the fact that good Ethan is time.” rehabilitation, candidate for he should receive meaningful opportunity someday to demon- high degree there

The State contends is a parole strate to the that he can board certainty that Ethan will never be rehabili- — Graham, U.S.-, safely released. that, prior sentencing, tated. It notes to Dr. Cf 130 S.Ct. at (requir- 176 L.Ed.2d at 850 adjusting Estess was still Ethan’s medication juvenile all non-homicide offenders to be symptoms. Ethan had ensure no residual given opportunity a “realistic to obtain re- The State also asserts Ethan resisted term). lease” before the end of a life going integrating outside for exercise or issues, juveniles jail. other while These states, Majority reasoning The without however, are not a reasonable basis on which authority, that courts need not take into ac- to conclude that Ethan will never be rehabili- possibility parole count the board tated for the rest of his life. The fact that he accurately could later more evaluate whether working adjust was with his doctor to his simply an offender should be It released. willingness medications indicates his re- “Legislature contends that the has conferred port problems comply with treatment. power responsibility impose deter- might advantageous It also be for Ethan to judiciary.” minate sentences relationships exercise and form with other Majority Legislature omits the fact that the juveniles, but the record nowhere indicates equipped parole also board to evaluate that his refusal to do so made him more throughout prison. offenders their time in dangerous poor to others or a candidate for empowered The Idaho Constitution state rehabilitation. It would not be unusual for a board of correction to release oversee boy adjust to take some additional time to Const, parole. on offenders See Idaho art. prison especially boy adult when life— X, § (empowering manage the board to mentally ill. parole); § adults on I.C. 20-219 see also (allowing grant parole

The district court also noted that Ethan the board to and re- abusing antidepressants quiring supervise parolees). before the it to State law jail receiving thereby impor- murder and that he was entrusts the board with the injections antipsychotics, necessarily determining which tant task of “what is best for supervision pro- society parolee.” direct from medical and the involves rehabilitation of the fessionals, State, rather than a more informal form Heath v.

884 (1971). nature of the considerations “based on the The board of correction 79 state offense,” of a statement for which the Court evaluating only after may grant parole, but authority. legal circumstances, Appeals itself cited no personal which the offender’s 635, 638, (Ct.App. Idaho 759 P.2d psychologi- includes medical specifically 1988). court did not Because the district -223(e). 20-219, § The I.C. cal information. general mention deterrence in its able to better as- will be parole commission bench, only ruling from the I will focus on in his adulthood after decades sess Ethan whether an offender’s individual characteris- medical treatment than the observation relevant to retributive considerations tics are him as could when it sentenced district court sentencing. confi- teenager. This Court should have a carefully parole board will Majority’s approach dence that is The new retributive proper factors and arrive at a departure concepts consider these a direct from basic about retribution, in Ethan’s case. as it is a well-entrenched feature conclusion culpability of American law that moral varies Further, sentencing Ethan as there were severity individual “The with each offender. determining no mechanism for later whether punishment necessarily appropriate society permits he is safe to release back into depends culpability on the of the offender.” unnecessarily impose harsh sen- courts to 304, 319, 122 Virginia, Atkins v. 536 U.S. mag- holding The Court’s therefore tences. 2242, 2251, (2002); S.Ct. 153 L.Ed.2d by assuming nifies the district court’s error Arizona, 137, 149, Tison v. 481 U.S. see also may resolve uncertain- that the district court 1676, 1683, 107 S.Ct. 95 L.Ed.2d against future Ethan. ties about distant (1987) (“The heart of the retribution ratio nale that a criminal must be sentence Its Discre- B. The District Court Abused directly personal culpability related Ethan, it Punished a Child tion when offender.”). every the criminal “Not offense Disorder, a with a Full with Mental category pun in a like calls for an identical Adult Sentence may properly be a variation ishment. There quarrel Majority I do not when it with offenders, in sentences as between different maximum asserts that a crime can merit the depending on the indi the circumstances of penalty simply egregious nature. based on its cases____” Small, vidual State v. Majority’s agree I cannot however with the 504, 506, 1336, 1338 690 P.2d A crime unprecedented holding the offender’s in- reprehensible poten is less therefore —and longer dividual characteristics are no rele- tially deserving less of severe retribution —if determining reprehensibility vant to of a personally mitigating the criminal cir has crime. I also cannot see how the district cases, death-penalty cumstances. Even in any finding court exercised reason requires jury judge weigh the law egregious enough Ethan’s offense was aggravating against mitigating factors ones prison merit the maximum sentence available appropriate to determine the sentence. See punish mentally adult. sound Payne, State v. (2008) 19-2515, § (citing stating I.C. 1. An Characteristics Are Rel- juries weighing process of Offender’s “conduct the Reprehensibility evant aggravating mitigating factors to deter Crime mine if sentenced to the defendant should be death”). Majority startling point creates a new law, stating, “The considerations of socie- Punishing part offenders based at least general tal retribution and deterrence are comports personal culpability on their unique not decided on the basis of the char- jus- justice. our natural sense of Retributive offender; acteristics rather these con- “pays” the defendant for tice ensures that “just siderations are decided the characteris- by getting his or des- the crime her (9th (emphasis original). Dictionary tics of the erts.” See Black’s Law offense” ed.2009) nonbinding (defining “just pun- The Court cites Court of deserts” as “the case, Eubank, Appeals propo- person having for the State v. ishment that a deserves crime”). necessarily in- sition and deterrence are committed a This that retribution

885 by just reprehensibility the maximum authorized law even not the for a volves offense, the offender has but also whether healthy § adult. I.C. 18-4004. A maximum any personal aggravating mitigating or char- only sentence should be reserved for the 981, State, Taggart v. 957 So.2d acteristics. blameworthy espe- most defendants. This is (Miss.2007). example, shooting For 994 cially imposing when true a fixed-life sen- by cognitively mature adult of- committed by tence. Because fixed-life sentences their greater retribution than the fender merits very presuppose nature that rehabilitation is by shooting same committed an adult with impossible, they justified can where five-year-old. cognitive abilities of a the offender’s conduct has been so horrific authority Majority That the cites no to the society’s interest in deterrence and ret- contrary ubiquitous how further illustrates govern penalty. ribution must There are principle this is. why two reasons Ethan does not deserve the pertinent Most to this case is the fact that punishment full adult of a fixed-life sentence. youth offender’s and an offender’s mental First, likely would not have committed the reprehensi capacity are both relevant to how paranoid schizophrenia, offense but for his below, explained ble a crime is. As further second, sixteen-year-old he was a boy at notably capital- most this has surfaced culpability the time of the murder. The of a punishment jurisprudence, principle cases, child who commits a crime remains the same in all criminal in as a result of cluding determinate-life sentences. See mental illness is “twice diminished” over that (S.D. Hinger, 600 548 State v. N.W.2d healthy of a adult. one of While these fac- 1999)(stating that the “most severe” sanction sentence, might justify tors alone a fixed-life imprisonment of life is reserved for “the impose a court should not such a sentence on most serious combinations of offense and acting voluntarily. a child who is not ” background (emphasis offender added)). held, Supreme The U.S. Court has culpability a. Ethan’s is diminished because proportional “Retribution is not if the law’s acting voluntarily he was not but rather penalty imposed most severe on one whose diminished, culpability as a result of a or blameworthiness is disorder degree, by youth a substantial reason of matter, general As a defendants with di- Simmons, immaturity.” Roper v. capacity minished mental are less blamewor- 551, 571, 1183, 1196, U.S. 125 S.Ct. thy people cognitively than who are intact. (2005). L.Ed.2d The Court has also Court, Supreme example, The U.S. cate- mentally simply found that the retarded are gorically capable committing penalty not crimes that de barred the death for men- serve the same level of retribution as those tally retarded individuals because are by fully mentally capable committed adults. “engage logical reasoning,” less able to Atkins, 317-19, 122 536 U.S. at S.Ct. at impulses.” and to “control Id. at 347-49; Omoski, v. 153 L.Ed.2d at see Allen 2250-51, S.Ct. at 153 L.Ed.2d at 348. Even (9th Cir.2006) (“[T]he 435 F.3d 952-53 though the defendant’s mental condition is Supreme Court’s limitations on the use of the Idaho, any not a defense to crime in I.C. penalty grounded theory death are 18-207(1), ability § the defendant’s to control persons culpable that some classes of are less appreciate mitigat- his or her actions is a deserving of the and therefore not death directly sentencing. factor relevant Quarterman, penalty.”); see also Nelson Strand, State v. (5th Cir.2006) (same). 472 F.3d 472, 476 mental is “a When illness Majority ruling errs in otherwise. sentence, significant factor” in a criminal district court must consider a number of 2. The District Court Did Not Exercise facts, mitigating including Reason When It Concluded That Eth- “[t]he extent an Deserved the Maximum Adult ill,” mentally which the defendant is “[t]he Punishment degree of illness or defect and level of func- capacity impairment,” tional “[t]he A determinate life sentence for second- appreciate degree wrongfulness defendant to murder is a harsh one and is the profound psy- of a aggression was a result to conform conduct his conduct before, suffering dur- chotic disorder he was the time of the of- law at requirements of 19-2523; Both doctors ing, and after the murder. § Hollon v. charged.”4 Id. fense 927, evolving “clearly had an found that Ethan State, 935 Idaho 132 episode going back at least three to psychotic “By requiring the court to consider incident,” that he years prior to the and sentencing, the four capacity at the defendant’s “psychotic which oc- underwent a break necessarily required that legislature time he killed his curred at and around the capacity to consider the defendant’s court agreed that Ethan’s mother.” Both doctors separately actions from appreciate his or her with serial killers and violence requisite preoccupation intent to ability to form the directly growing psychotic related to his Odiaga, v. the offense.” State commit (1994); that Eth- symptoms. There is no indication P.2d see Idaho remorselessness, actions, King, an’s offensive State also (“Diminished anything but his grandiose statements were (Ct.App.1991) P.2d psychosis manifesting As Dr. Beaver rationally to the itself. capacity act is relevant to sentence....”). observed, any not evidence of “There was of determination malingering significant exaggeration of his overwhelmingly medical evidence The psychiatric issues.” killed mother as that Ethan his demonstrates Majority Bo'th the district court and the mental illness. Ethan a result of serious professionals calling suggest the medical are during confession that a stated his par- “growing” inside not unanimous as to whether Ethan has murder had been commit schizophrenia. Regardless of what prior night time to the anoid him some for is, Beaver, precise profes- Ethan’s ailment no medical Craig psycholo- Dr. W. murder. Estess, ever indicated that Ethan was Dr. Michael E. Ethan’s sional has gist, and mentally jail, diagnosed sound when he murdered his moth- treating psychiatrist both by police. when he was interviewed paranoid schizophrenia, with a disor- er or Ethan kill it that drove Ethan to Judith because der wrote, important, Dr. Estess Just as properly treated. Dr. Estess had not been episode murder “is Ethan’s first serious wrote, my encoun- “It was obvious from first intrusive, disorganization response to his acutely psychotic, ter with Ethan that he was delusional, point psychotic material. I would evolving, suffering had been from an young very signifi- out that this man made illness, time psychotic, delusional for some get some treatment.” cant efforts to himself prior Dr. concluded to his arrest.” Estess Windom, father, According Craig Ethan’s “voluntary.” actions were not that Ethan’s previously Ethan had demanded to see a tentatively diagnosed Ethan Dr. Beaver also professional diagnose prob- medical his schizophrenia, stating that paranoid with Consequently, four months before the lems. “[cjlearly, disorder and his murder, began seeing Dr. Tim Ash- treatment, primary ... or lack thereof was a aye, psychiatrist. The court com- district causing factor” in the murder. Ashaye’s Dr. records do not mented that exhibiting that Ethan was homicidal Virtually all the available medical evidence show symptoms psychopathy. ideations or other indicates that Ethan’s bizarre behavior (c) prognosis improvement portion provides The for or reha- the statute 4. The relevant bilitation; full: (d) (1) ceived, availability and level of The of treatment of mental condition shall be re- Evidence offered, sentencing of required; if at the time of care (e) any person convicted of a crime. In determin- danger Any risk of which the defendant imposed in the sentence to be addition large, public, for the if at or the create law, provided by other criteria the defen- risk; absence of such (f) factor, significant mental condition is a dant's appreci- capacity of the defendant to The the court shall consider such factors as: wrongfulness his conduct or to ate the (a) The extent to which the defendant requirements conform his conduct ill; mentally charged. law at the time of the offense (b) degree The of illness or defect and level 19-2523(1). § I.C. impairment; of functional Ashaye only spent thoughts fact that Dr. short homicidal “and that his meds were likely periods explains working properly.”6 of time with Ethan not misdiagnosis.5 short, the crime that Ethan committed was the direct result of his mental disorder. reason, Ashaye, misdiag- Dr. for whatever The record is full of evidence that Ethan depression anxiety nosed Ethan with attempted to growing psychotic address his drugs prescribed to treat those illnesses It is imagine illness. difficult to what more a drugs psychosis. rather than Dr. Beaver sixteen-year-old boy palpable psychotic and Dr. each stated that the anti- Estess symptoms could do about his own mental anxiety likely “disinhibiting” medication was disorder. The unreasonably district court Ethan, potentially exacerbating to his illness focused on the erratic behavior Ethan exhib- by making it more difficult to resist homicid- immediately ited before and after the murder impulses. opined al Both also that Ethan’s ignored compelling and evidence that his might supplements over-the-counter creatine voluntary. actions were not inadvertently aggres- have made him more sive. years b. Ethan was sixteen old at the time Ethan continued to seek relief for his of the offense and was therefore not as by visiting mental illness with a social work- culpable as an adult er, Layman. repeatedly Andrew Ethan de- Compounding Ethan’s impulses compulsive thoughts scribed his homicidal to just was the fact that he was still a child. Layman, just who one week before the mur- broadly agree Courts by that adolescents are began suspect psy- der to that Ethan was large responsible less mature than encouraged step- chotic. Ethan also his Oklahoma, Thompson adults. v. 487 U.S. Ashaye mother to ask Dr. to increase his 815, 834, 2687, 2698, 108 S.Ct. 101 L.Ed.2d suggested medications and even to various 702, (1988) (plurality 717-18 opinion); see family members that he be committed to a Harris, 376, 382, also State v. psychiatric facility. Ethan later demanded a 1387, (Ct.App.1995) P.2d (holding that scan, brain which revealed a childhood age is a noting factor and injury significant organic had caused brain “age impulsiveness” defendant’s in evalu- lobe, damage temporal right to Ethan’s an sentence). ating a criminal “Even the nor- is, according area the brain that 16-year-old mal maturity lacks the of an scan, psychiatrist performed “pri- who Oklahoma, 104, Eddings adult.” v. 455 U.S. mary expression in emotional and control.” 869, 1, 102 S.Ct. 71 L.Ed.2d 11-12 (1982) added). reported

Ethan (emphasis even his homicidal Supreme The U.S. thoughts authority figures. to According recently to juveniles Court stated that “because School, High records from Borah Ethan’s culpability they have lessened are less de- psychology teacher referred serving punishments.” Ethan to school of the most severe — Graham, -, openly administrators when he told his class U.S. 130 S.Ct. at “thoughts had committing he violent psychiatric 176 L.Ed.2d at 841. It relied on against crimes really others and it demonstrating [was] research that adolescents are searing him impulsive that somehow he lose con- more than adults because “are able, seriously trol and average, hurt someone.” Ethan less on than adults to self- control, regulate, ‘cognitively’ then told both a school nurse and a school or their behav- thoughts. counselor about his homicidal ior.” Brief of the American Medical Ass’n murder, month before Academy was arrest- and the American of Child & Ado- battery punched Psychiatry ed for when he Support- classmate lescent as Amici Curiae — 6, Graham, taking yet for Party even told the Neither U.S. seat — (2010) -, arresting police having officer he was 130 S.Ct. 176 L.Ed.2d 825 police immediately charge battery, just 5. Ethan told after 6. his arrest This one month before Ashaye only spent murder, that Dr. a “few minutes” with was the first time Ethan had ever him aat time and "never asked about his homi- been arrested. thoughts, feelings, impulses.” cidal behavior, lack ity their 08-7621), comprehend (Nos.08-7412, 2009 WL Graham). knowledge (cited immaturity neurological maturity and This often ill- it. “impetuous experiences make to control gained from life causes children decisions.” Johnson considered actions Texas, 113 S.Ct. U.S. youth and together, Ethan’s c. When taken 2669, 125 L.Ed.2d fixed- to make a mental illness combine align views Supreme Court’s punish- The U.S. inappropriate life sentence scholarly liter emerging in the the consensus ment able as are not as that adolescents ature Graham, Supreme Court ruled the U.S. Psychiatrists and responsibly. act adults to children who have out fixed-life sentences for that most children observe neuroscientists offenses, reasoning non-capital committed logic to exercise develop adult-like abilities murderer, compared an adult that “when they are fourteen or reason the time juvenile did not kill or intend offender who Kambam & years old. Praveen fifteen culpabili- kill a twice diminished moral has Development Christopher Thompson, The — 2027, -, at 176 ty.” U.S. 130 S.Ct. Decision-Making Capacities Children in juvenile that a L.Ed.2d at 842. It follows Psychological and Neuro and Adolescents: crime, offender, regardless also has of the logical Perspectives Implications and Their culpability” if he or diminished moral “twice 27 Behav. & L. Defendants, Sci. Juvenile for involuntarily to mental illness. she acted due (2009). 173, ability logi to think Their 175 deteriorates, however, emotionally cally inability hold out juvenile’s The natural to Jay D. Aron charged situations. or stressful especially impor- against impulses becomes Justice, son, Juvenile Neuroscience and profound mental disorder com- tant when a (2009). Further, 917, Akron L.Rev. 921-22 violently. Eddings, pels him or her to act Cf. sixteen, adolescents, by age though “[e]ven 877, 115, 71 L.Ed.2d 455 U.S. at 102 S.Ct. at comparable with exhibit intellectual abilities (“[W]hen years was 16 at 11 the defendant adults, they develop psycho-social do not there can be no old at the time of the offense self-control, maturity, ability to exercise of ... severe emotional doubt that evidence adult-quality un competence to make choices relevant.”). A particularly disturbance is Feld, early-twenties.” Barry C. til their Un child, already lacking developed capacity to mitigated Criminal Punishment: Adolescent defy impulses, likely susceptible more to Sentences, Responsibility and 10 J.L. LWOP involuntary psychotic compulsion to act vio- (2007). 11, & Fam. Stud. These scientific lently. already we observations articulate what everyday Teenagers, case, life. includ sixteen-year-old know from Ethan was a In this Ethan, generally differ understand the persistent psychotic homi boy suffering from right wrong is their ence between drastically undermines impulses. cidal This —it ability that dimin to modulate their behavior and should make him personal culpability his culpability.7 ishes their punishment ineligible for the most severe second-degree murder. available for These basic facts about child behavior fur- Moreover, second-degree penalty for why abused ther illustrate the district court years impris to life ranges murder from ten Both the district court and its discretion. sixty mean a sentence of onment. This could long Majority recite a list of statements more, making life a much years or sentence regarding Ethan made before the murder his child than an penalty more onerous for a fascination with violence and statements he days expect spend fewer adult who can indicating he under- made after the murder during or her natural life. See prison his mother. stood that he had murdered 1196, 161 572, 125 Roper, 543 U.S. at S.Ct. They fact that most nowhere account for the (“[T]he punishment of life juveniles cognitive abil- L.Ed.2d at 23-24 age Ethan’s have the abilities, Morse, Immaturity formal-reasoning are less able to Stephen but 7. J. See also risk, Criminology Irresponsibility, impulsive, devel- 88 J.Crim. L. & are and have a less assess (1997) (concluding, adults). after a review of the 52-53 scholarly oped passage of time than sense literature, have mature that adolescents 663, 665-66, possibility pa- ley, 140 imprisonment without the Idaho 99 P.3d 618- sanction, (2004), particular role is itself a severe discretion has to end young person.”). This Court must somewhere. Here discretion was boundaries of the applied somewhere draw the outer abused when the district court authority sentencing courts’ to en- (cid:127)wrong legal district standard determine whether future, that, younger men- Further, sure even Ethan could be rehabilitated. even tally prison ill not forev- children are sent sentencing applies court the correct er for behavior outside of their conscious standard, legal this Court overturns sen- control. tences that are unreasonable upon based Sheahan, specific facts of each case. State v. Majority legal states that two Dissent, opinions cited in this Graham and Ignoring the individual circumstances under- Roper, applicable are not here because lying each criminal sentence would be no Graham, Eighth are Amendment decisions. — appellate review at all. Idaho’s courts have a -, U.S. at 130 S.Ct. at duty personal to intervene when someone’s 834-35; Roper, L.Ed.2d at 543 U.S. at 559- withheld, unreasonably freedom could be 125 S.Ct. at 161 L.Ed.2d at 15-16. inquiring this includes into the trial court’s Ethan, course, does not raise a constitu- factual regard determinations with challenge appeal tional to his sentence on ensuring factors and Nonetheless, this Court. the real-world applied court legal the correct standard. principles Supreme the U.S. Court relied words, other this Court can and should ex- Roper, as other Graham and well pect precision more in sentencing than what fully rulings, are universal and relevant here. occurred here. By large, mentally and the insane conform, young do not and indeed cannot be summarize, To punishment a severe is un- conform, expected to their behavior to the case, doubtedly appropriate in this but a fully developed law the a same extent as fixed-life sentence is the maximum sentence adult. mentally available even for a sound adult who expressly It is further true that Graham has committed this same crime. Under no worthy found homicides to be more of severe pen- reasonable view of the facts should this punishment noncapital than crimes and af- alty imposed mentally on ill child who firmed that fixed-life sentences are available would not have committed except this crime juveniles capi- punish who have committed cognitive judge his serious disorder. No Graham, however, tal crimes. did not ad- fifty sixty years can see in the future. dress a situation at all like Ethan’s. There is already Even if did prom- not show a no indication that the offender in that case rehabilitated, ising likelihood that he can be paranoid schizophrenia suffered from surely undergo medical science will radical similarly serious illness. progress during Changes his lifetime. psychological therapy psychiatric treat- Majority ultimately The Justices in the very ment methods could well render mental they “may admit that well have done as the parole illnesses like Ethan’s curable. The suggests” imposed lighter pen- dissent just purpose: board exists for this to monitor alty sentencing judges, were the and evaluate individual cases so that courts opine “[sjentencing is less a science than prophesize do not have to an unknowable art,” nearly left to the boundless discre- distant future. The sentence should be va- Majority justifies tion of the trial court. The cated and the case remanded for resentenc- its refusal to vacate the district court’s sen- ing. by explaining tence “[o]ur standard of (nor indeed, require

review does not does it

permit) us to conduct our own evaluation of weight given to be each of the

considerations.” course,

Of the district court has wide dis- sentence, imposing

cretion in State v. Cal-

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Windom

Court Name: Idaho Supreme Court

Date Published: Mar 16, 2011

Citation: 253 P.3d 310

Docket Number: 36656

Court Abbreviation: Idaho