Case Name: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Thomas Eugene CREECH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1983-05-23
Citations: 105 Idaho 362
Docket Number: Nos. 14480, 15000
Parties: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Thomas Eugene CREECH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: DONALDSON, C.J., and BAKES, J., concur.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 105
Pages: 362–419

Head Matter:
670 P.2d 463
STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Thomas Eugene CREECH, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 14480, 15000.
Supreme Court of Idaho.
May 23, 1983.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 21, 1983.
Rolf Kehne, Boise, Klaus Wiebe, Ada County Public Defenders Office, for defendant-appellant.
David H. Leroy, Jim Jones, Attys. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

Opinion:
SHEPARD, Justice.
This is an appeal from a death sentence imposed upon defendant-appellant Thomas Eugene Creech after his plea of guilty to the charge of first degree murder. The cause is before this Court pursuant to the provisions of I.C. § 19-2827, "Whenever the death penalty is imposed, and upon the judgment becoming final in the trial court, the sentence shall be reviewed on the record by the Supreme Court of Idaho," and also upon an appeal filed by Creech, asserting error in certain proceedings, actions and orders of the trial court. We hold that the sentence was validly imposed in conformity with the statutory requirements for the imposition of a death sentence and that the sentence imposed was not in violation of either the Constitution of the State of Idaho or the Constitution of the United States. We affirm.
The following facts regarding the particular offense are disclosed by the record. At the time of the offense here in question, Creech was an inmate of the Idaho State Correctional Institution, serving a life sentence for first degree murder. The victim of this offense, Dale Jensen, had been convicted of car theft and was serving a sentence in the same institution. Jensen had some years earlier sustained a gunshot wound to the head which had necessitated the removal of part of his brain and the placement of a plastic plate in his skull. His speech and motor functions were impaired to some extent. At the time of the offense, both Creech and Jensen were housed in the maximum security tier of the institution.
In the maximum security tier, only one inmate at any one time was ordinarily allowed out of his cell. Creech, however, had been made a janitor and thus, while Creech was performing cleaning duties, he might be out of his cell while another inmate was out of his cell for exercise or shower privileges.
Prior to the offense in question, Creech and Jensen had engaged in argument over television and over Jensen's littering and dirtying the floor, for which Creech, as janitor, was responsible. Apparently the two were not on good terms. Although Creech himself has given more than one version of the murder, it appears that on the day in question, while Jensen was out of his cell, Jensen approached Creech and swung a weapon at him which consisted of a sock containing batteries. Creech took the weapon away from Jensen, who returned to his cell but emerged with a toothbrush to which had been taped a razor blade. When the two men again met, Jensen made some movement toward Creech, who then struck Jensen between the eyes with the battery laden sock, knocking Jensen to the floor. The fight continued, according to Creech's version, with Jensen swinging the razor blade at Creech and Creech hitting Jensen with the battery filled sock. The plate imbedded in Jensen's skull shattered, and blood from Jensen's skull was splashed on the floor and walls. Finally, the sock broke and the batteries fell out, and by that time Jensen was helpless. Creech then commenced kicking Jensen about the throat and head. Sometime later a guard noticed blood, and Jensen was taken to the hospital, where he died the same day. There is some evidence in the record indicating that Creech had been enticed by other inmates to "do Jensen in," but the district judge did not decide or find that the murder had been performed on contract or by plan.
Creech was charged with first degree murder and initially pleaded not guilty. However, later and apparently in response to a letter from Creech, he and his counsel were brought into court to entertain Creech's request to change his plea to guilty. Over the objections of defense counsel, that guilty plea was accepted and the court set a date for a sentencing hearing. Prior to that sentencing hearing, defendant's counsel demanded a jury trial on the issue of aggravating and mitigating factors and also demanded sentencing by a jury. Defense counsel further demanded a sentencing hearing formal in nature and based solely on the testimony of live witnesses, and he objected to any consideration of hearsay evidence to be used in the formulation of findings on aggravation and mitigation. All of those demands were denied.
At the sentencing hearing, testimony was offered by both the State and the defense, relating to the mental condition of Creech. A psychiatrist, testifying on behalf of the State, offered as his professional opinion that Creech did not suffer from any organic brain syndrome, did not generally depart from reality in his day to day life, and was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and conform his acts to the requirements of the law. A psychologist, testifying for the defense, offered as his opinion that Creech, during the fight with Jensen, lost his capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. The psychologist further testified that, in his opinion, Creech suffered from antisocial personality disorder, from a learning deficit, from schizotypal personality disorder, and from a borderline personality disorder. The district court, although not expressly ruling on the sanity of Creech, did find that the defendant was of adequate intelligence and capable of being trained and educated, and further found that the murder was an intentional and calculated act.
Following the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the district court made its written findings and pronounced sentence of death upon Creech.
The issues presented on this appeal are whether I.C. § 19-2515 — 2516 require a judge's findings in mitigation and aggravation and the imposition of sentence to be based solely on evidence adduced from witnesses personally present and testifying in open court at the sentencing hearing; whether the district judge here committed error in his weighing of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances; and finally, whether the imposition of the death penalty, under our statutory scheme which allows the imposition of the death penalty by a judge without participation or recommendation of jury, is unconstitutional. We answer all three issues in the negative and affirm the holding of the district court below.
At the outset of the sentencing hearing the State requested that the court take judicial notice of the court's entire file and of the presentence report which the district judge had ordered be prepared. Defendant objected and demanded that the entire sentencing record be produced by live witnesses testifying in open court, basing his demand on I.C. § 19-2515 — 2516 and the case law interpreting those statutes. That demand was treated as a motion, which was denied.
We note at the outset that a sentencing decision made solely on the basis of live testimony is not constitutionally mandated. Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides as a matter of course that the probation service of the court shall make a presentence investigation and report to the court before imposition of sentence. The use of the presentence report over defendant's objection has been upheld, despite the contention that the report contained hearsay. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 203-204, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2939-2940, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976); United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972); Gregg v. United States, 394 U.S. 489, 89 S.Ct. 1134, 22 L.Ed.2d 442 (1969); State v. Johnson, 101 Idaho 581, 618 P.2d 759 (1980); United States v. Ferreboeuf, 632 F.2d 832 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 934, 101 S.Ct. 1398, 67 L.Ed.2d 368 (1981); Gelfuso v. Bell, 590 F.2d 754 (9th Cir.1978). This Court has held that the trial judge has broad discretion in deciding what evidence is admissible at the sentencing hearing, State v. Johnson, supra, and that the rules of evidence do not apply to the sentencing process, State v. Johnson, supra; State v. Tucker, 97 Idaho 4, 539 P.2d 556 (1975). All of the above holdings comport with the constitutional mandate "that there be taken into account the circumstances of the offense together with the character and propensities of the offender." Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan v. Ashe, 302 U.S. 51, at 55, 58 S.Ct. 59, at 60, 82 L.Ed. 43 (1937). Accord Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982); Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576, 79 S.Ct. 421, 3 L.Ed.2d 516 (1959); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949). We further note that the United States Supreme Court has in several instances set aside a death sentence, where the Court deemed that the circumstances under which the sentence was imposed did not allow the proper in-depth consideration of the particular circumstances of both the offender and the offense involved. Enmund v. Florida, supra; Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); Roberts v. Louisiana, 431 U.S. 633, 97 S.Ct. 1993, 52 L.Ed.2d 637 (1977); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976); Winston v. United States, 172 U.S. 303, 19 S.Ct. 212, 43 L.Ed. 456 (1899). See also, Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 271-273, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 2956-2957, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976).
Thus, the argument of appellant that the matters which may be considered at a sentencing hearing must be limited to testimony adduced from witnesses there present must find its foundation, if any, in interpretation of the language of I.C. § 19-2515-2516. I.C. § 19-2515 provides in pertinent part:
"(a) After a plea or verdict of guilty, where a discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment, the court, upon the oral or written suggestion of either party that there are circumstances which may be properly taken into view either in aggravation or mitigation of the punishment, may, in its discretion, hear the same summarily, at a specified time, and upon such notice to the adverse party as it may direct.
"(c) In all cases in which the death penalty may be imposed, the court shall, after conviction, order a presentence investigation to be conducted according to such procedures as are prescribed by law and shall thereafter convene a sentencing hearing for the purpose of hearing all relévant evidence and arguments of counsel in aggravation and mitigation of the offense. At such hearing, the state and the defendant shall be entitled to present all relevant evidence in aggravation and mitigation . Evidence admitted at trial shall be considered and need not be repeated at the sentencing hearing. Evidence offered at trial but not admitted may be repeated or amplified if necessary to complete the record." (Emphasis added.)
I.C. § 19-2516 provides:
"19-2516. Inquiry into circumstances — Examination of witnesses. — The circumstances must be presented by the testimony of witnesses examined in open court, except that when a witness is so sick or infirm as to be unable to attend, his deposition may be taken by a magistrate of the county, out of court, upon such notice to the adverse party as the court may direct. No affidavit or testimony, or representation of any kind, verbal or written, can be offered to or received by the court, or a judge thereof, in aggravation or mitigation of the punishment, except as provided in this and the preceding section." (Emphasis added.)
Here the district court accepted a presentence report compiled by a probation officer which included recitations of prior murder convictions, pending charges of first degree murder, other felonies of which Creech had been charged or convicted, the transcript from a prior trial in which Creech was convicted of first degree murder, reports of psychiatric interviews, letters from Creech, and the manuscript of an autobiographical paper written by Creech, all of which material was considered by the sentencing judge in the instant case.
Appellant asserts that any reasonable interpretation of I.C. § 19-2516 mandates that only oral testimony is to be admitted and considered in a sentencing hearing and hence the admission and consideration of the written presentence report was error, particularly where as here appellant had demanded that the hearing be limited to live testimony.
Appellant's assertion regarding the requirements of I.C. § 19-2516 has been considered and rejected by this Court in the recent case of State v. Osborn, 102 Idaho 405, 631 P.2d 187 (1981). In Osborn it was held that the statute does not displace or exclude the discretion otherwise granted to the state as to the procedure of presenting evidence of aggravating circumstances at the sentencing hearing. There the Court stated:
"The last sentence of I.C. § 19-2516 makes it clear that we are to treat both sections as together setting forth the procedure to be followed in such hearings. The statute provides that evidence previously presented at trial need not be repeated and indeed may be amplified if desired. The parties are 'entitled to present all [other] relevant evidence' they desire. The manifest intent is to place as much possible relevant information as can be provided before the sentencing court. This also serves to provide this court with as much information and as complete a record as possible for appellate review." Id., 102 Idaho at 41U-412, 631 P.2d 193-194 (brackets in original).
In Osborn it was noted that the "unreasoning adherence to the formal requirements [of I.C. § 19-2516] would not materially add to the achievement of statutory objectives" and held that the admission of the presentence report was not error. Id., 102 Idaho at 413, 631 P.2d 195.
Under the established rules of statutory construction, we are required to construe the language of I.C. § 19-2515 as being consistent with the language of I.C. § 19-2516, if such construction is at all possible. As we explained in Union Pacific R. Co. v. Board of Tax Appeals, 103 Idaho 808, 654 P.2d 901, 904 (1982):
"Statutes which are in pari materia are to be construed together to the end that legislative intent will be effected. [Citations omitted.] As stated in Meyers v. City of Idaho Falls, 52 Idaho 81, 89-90, 11 P.2d 626, 629 (1932):
'The rule that statutes in pari materia are to be construed together means that each legislative act is to be interpreted with other acts relating to the same matter or subject. Statutes are in pari materia when they relate to the same subject. Such statutes are taken together and construed as one system, and the object is to carry into effect the intention. It is to be inferred that a code of statutes relating to one subject was governed by one spirit and policy, and was intended to be consistent and harmonious in its several parts and provisions. For the purpose of learning the intention, all statutes relating to the same subject are to be compared, and so far as still in force brought into harmony by interpretation.' (Citations omitted.)"
Since both statutes deal with the same subject matter, i.e., sentencing procedures, we are enjoined to compare and harmonize them.
I.C. § 19-2515(c) clearly requires that, "[i]n all cases in which the death penalty may be imposed, the court shall, after conviction, order a presentence investigation to be conducted according to such procedures as are prescribed by law." Hence, no discretion exists in the court, other than to order the conducting of a presentence investigation. I.C. § 20-220 sets out the scope of such investigation, requires a written report, and mandates:
"The parole and probation officer shall inquire into the circumstances of the offense, criminal record, social history and present condition of the defendant. Whenever practicable, such investigation shall include a physical and mental examination of the defendant."
A logical extension of appellant's argument would require an investigation to be completed, a written report to be submitted, but upon the demand of the defendant, the court to refrain from reading the report. Such a result would be, of course, anomalous and unnecessary. We hold that the closing language of I.C. § 19-2516 clearly and unambiguously provides an exception to the otherwise required oral testimony and that those authorizations of I.C. § 19-2515 fall within the purview of the intended exception.
Appellant argues that interpreting the presentence investigation requirements of I.C. § 19-2515 as an exception to the live witness requirement of I.C. § 19-2516 renders the live witness requirement a nullity. As noted above, we do not find the two statutes to be irreconcilable because of the exception language, but in any event, if the provisions of the two statutes could not be harmonized, then the provisions of I.C. § 19—2516 would be construed to be superseded, since I.C. § 19-2515 is the later enacted statute. Mickelsen v. City of Rexburg, 101 Idaho 305, 612 P.2d 542 (1980).
As stated in State v. Yoelin, 94 Idaho 791, 794, 498 P.2d 1264, 1267 (1972), the court is free to consider the results of the prehearing investigation if the reliability of the information contained in the report is insured by certain protections, i.e.,
"(1) that the defendant be afforded a full opportunity to present favorable evidence; (2) that the defendant be afforded a reasonable opportunity to examine all the materials contained in the pre-sentence report; (3) that the defendant be afforded a full opportunity to explain and rebut adverse evidence."
Accord State v. Johnson, 101 Idaho 581, 618 P.2d 759 (1980), citing Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949); State v. Ballard, 93 Idaho 355, 461 P.2d 250 (1969). Here there is no contention that the defendant was not afforded those protections, and the defendant has at no point, either here or below, challenged the truth of any of the material contained in the presentence report.
We hold .that the court's admission of and consideration of the presentence report was not error.
Appellant next asserts that the district court committed reversible error in its finding of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. He asserts that the aggravating circumstances are unsupported in the record; that the court wrongly included in its weighing process non-statutory aggravating circumstances; that the statutory aggravating circumstances which the court may consider as listed in I.C. § 19-2515(f) are unconstitutionally vague; that the court unconstitutionally failed to consider the reduced capacity of the defendant at the time of the murder as being a mitigating circumstance; and that the weighing process of I.C. § 19-2515 is unconstitutional, in that it allows the imposition of a death sentence where aggravating circumstances do not outweigh mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.
The decisions of the United States Supreme Court require that sentencing discretion be directed and limited, so as to promote consistency and to prevent a death sentence from being "wantonly" and "freakishly" imposed (Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 310, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 2762, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972) (Stewart, J., concurring)), and to provide a "meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in which it is imposed from the many cases in which it is not" (id., at 313, 92 S.Ct. at 2764 (White, J., concurring); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 599, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 2962, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (Burger, C.J., writing for the plurali ty); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2932, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (Stewart, J., announcing the judgment of the court and an opinion in which Powell and Stevens, JJ., join)). At the same time, the sentencing process must allow flexibility, in order that it be humane and sensitive to the individual defendant. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), citing Lockett v. Ohio, supra.
Thus, an almost unavoidable conflict presents itself to a legislature attempting to design a sentencing process that is both a consistent and principled system of punishment and one that is flexibly humane and cognizant of the uniqueness of each individual defendant. See, Eddings v. Oklahoma, supra. In Idaho, the aggravating circumstances which a sentencing judge may consider in pronouncing sentence in a capital case are clearly laid out in I.C. § 19-2515, and thus, to the extent possible, arbitrariness or the influence of prejudice is avoided, but the necessary individual consideration is nonetheless preserved. The open-ended allowance of mitigating evidence provides the defendant with the opportunity to present every possible justification for a sentence of less than death. Such an unlimited mitigation provision was approved in Eddings v. Oklahoma, supra. We hold, therefore, that the sentencing provisions of I.C. § 19-2501-2523 satisfy those guidelines, as we understand them, from the various holdings of the United States Supreme Court in death penalty cases.
We turn now to whether the sentencing judge complied with those statutory provisions. Appellant argues that the court erred in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had previously been convicted of other murders; that the defendant had exhibited utter disregard for human life and a propensity to commit murder; that the defendant was under sentence for first degree murder at the time of his actions; and that both defendant and his victim were inmates at the state penitentiary when the crime occurred. We have reviewed the record and hold that the evidence at the sentencing hearing clearly supports the trial court's findings of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Appellant next asserts that the trial court erred, in that the judge weighed non-statutory aggravating circumstances against mitigating circumstances, thereby allegedly violating the strictures of I.C. § 19-2515. This contention appears to arise from the format chosen by the court in drafting its findings. The findings were organized into sections, i.e.,
"4. Facts and Argument Found in Mitigation
"5. Facts and Arguments Found in Aggravation [not expressly found beyond a reasonable doubt]
"6. Statutory Aggravating Circumstances Found Under Section 19-2515(f), Idaho Code [expressly found beyond a reasonable doubt] (Material in brackets added.)
The court is not limited as to the circumstances it may find in aggravation to those listed under I.C. § 19-2515(f). Thus, that section of the court's findings denominated "5. Facts and Arguments Found in Aggravation," although including circumstances not statutorily listed and not expressly found beyond a reasonable doubt, is not error. I.C. § 19-2515(a) permits the court, upon the suggestion of either party that there are circumstances which might properly be considered in aggravation or mitigation, to hear those circumstances. That language strongly suggests that a judge should hear all relevant evidence which either party desires to set forth. Such an interpretation is not contradicted by I.C. § 19-2515(f), which merely lists the statutory aggravating circumstances, at least one of which must exist beyond a reasonable doubt if the. ultimate sanction of death is to be imposed. As above stated, a wide scope of evidence of the personality and background of the accused must be available to the trial judge in order for the sentence to fit the individual defendant. Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949). We hold that the list of aggravating factors set forth- in the statute is not exclusive, albeit one of those factors must necessarily be found to exist beyond a reasonable doubt for a sentence of death to be upheld. • Where as here the sentencing judge formally finds, and his findings are substantiated, that there are statutory aggravating factors and those factors are not outweighed by mitigating circumstances, he has complied with the statutory directives. We find no error.
Appellant next asserts that certain factors set forth as aggravating circumstances by I.C. § 19 — 2515(f) are unconstitutionally vague, and he specifically challenges the findings that the appellant here had exhibited "utter disregard for human life," I.C. § 19-2515(f)(6), and a "propensity to commit murder," I.C. § 19-2515(f)(8).
In State v. Osborn, 102 Idaho 405, 631 P.2d 187 (1981), relying on Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976), and on Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980), we held that the challenged statutory language was sufficiently narrow, direct and objective to withstand a constitutional challenge of unconstitutional unfairness. We stated:
"A . limiting construction must be placed upon the aggravating circumstances in I.C. § 19 — 2515(f)(6), that '[b]y the murder, or the circumstances surrounding its commission, the defendant exhibited utter disregard for human life.' To properly define this circumstance, it is important to note the other aggravating circumstances with which this provision overlaps. The second aggravating circumstance, I.C. § 19-2515(f)(2), that the defendant committed another murder at the time this murder was committed, obviously could show an utter disregard for human life, as could the third aggravating circumstance, I.C. § 19-2515(f)(3), that the defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons. The same can be said for the fourth aggravating circumstance, I.C. § 19-2515(f)(4), that the murder was committed for remuneration. Since we will not presume that the legislative intent was to duplicate any already enumerated circumstance, thus making I.C. § 19-2515(f)(6) mere surplusage (See, e.g., Norton v. Dept. of Employment, 94 Idaho 924, 500 P.2d 825 (1972)), we hold that the phrase 'utter disregard' must be viewed in reference to acts other than those set forth in I.C. § 19 — 2515(f)(2), (3), and (4). We conclude instead that the phrase is meant to be reflective of acts or circumstances surrounding the crime which exhibit the highest, the utmost, callous disregard for human life, i.e., the cold-blooded, pitiless slayer." State v. Osborn, supra, 102 Idaho at 418-419, 631 P.2d 200-201.
We hold that, by this limiting definition, we as a reviewing court have fulfilled the requirements of Godfrey v. Georgia, supra, having thus tailored and consistently applied the law according to a principled definition that avoids the arbitrary and capricious infliction of the death penalty. We therefore hold that the statutory aggravating circumstance of I.C. § 19 — 2515(f)(6), that by the murder and the circumstances surrounding it defendant exhibited an utter disregard for human life, is not unconstitutionally vague.
Likewise, we reject appellant's assertion that I.C. § 19 — 2515(f)(8) is impermissibly vague. That statute provides, as an aggravating circumstance, that "[t]he defendant, by prior conduct or conduct in the commission of the murder at hand, has exhibited a propensity to commit murder which will probably constitute a continuing threat to society." Under Gregg and Fur-man, that statutory language does not fail as being facially unconstitutional. Here, as contrasted with the argument in Osborn regarding the "utter disregard for human life," it cannot be asserted that the "propensity" circumstance could conceivably be applied to every murderer coming before a court in this state. We would construe "propensity" to exclude, for example, a person who has no inclination to kill but in an episode of rage, such as during an emotional family or lover's quarrel, commits the offense of murder. We would doubt that most of those convicted of murder would again commit murder, and rather we construe the "propensity" language to specify that person who is a willing, predisposed killer, a killer who tends toward destroying the life of another, one who kills with less than the normal amount of provocation. We would hold that propensity assumes a proclivity, a susceptibility, and even an affinity toward committing the act of murder.
In Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, J., in which Powell and Stevens, JJ., joined), a similar provision from Georgia's statutory list of aggravating circumstances was upheld, the Court noting that the Georgia Supreme Court had sufficiently narrowed its meaning to avoid its being indiscriminately applied. The Court stated, "[T]he petitioner points to § 27-2534.1(b)(3) which speaks of creating a 'great risk of death to more than one person.' While such a phrase might be susceptible of an overly broad interpretation, the Supreme Court of Georgia has not so construed it." Id., 428 U.S. at 202, 96 S.Ct. at 2939.
In Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976), the Court rejected an argument that the circumstance of "a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society" was unconstitutionally vague. There the appellant had contended that the provision required the court to predict the future. It was noted that such speculation on future behavior is made by courts countless times daily in every sentencing decision and in every determination of bail, and by parole authorities constantly in probation decisions. Jurek, supra, 428 U.S. at p. 275, 96 S.Ct. at p. 2957 (opinion of Stewart, J., joined by Powell and Stevens, JJ.). White, J., joined by Chief Justice Burger and Rehnquist, J., concurred in the holding that the statutory aggravating circumstances of the Texas statute were sufficiently narrow in definition to withstand a challenge for vagueness. Accord Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 255, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 2968, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976). It has also been noted that, where a uniform process of appellate review is built in by way of a statutory requirement, there is an increased likelihood of consistent, well-guided application of such statutory aggravating circumstances. Such a system "can assure consistency, fairness and rationality in the evenhanded operation of the state law . [T]his [type of] system serves to assure that sentences of death will not be 'wantonly' or 'freakishly' imposed." Profitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 259-260, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 2969-2970, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (opinion of Powell, J., in which Stewart and Stevens, JJ., joined). Accord Jurek v. Texas, supra, 428 U.S. at 276, 96 S.Ct. at 2958; Gregg v. Georgia, supra, 428 U.S. at 205, 96 S.Ct. at 2940. Here our legislature has required that every capital sentencing decision be reviewed by this Court and has, in I.C. § 19-2827, further enhanced uniform application by requiring comparison of capital cases.
As applied to this particular defendant, the finding of propensity was clearly tailored and correct. The defendant here committed murder at least four times prior to the instant offense, twice in Idaho and also in Oregon and in California. There presently exist other pending charges of murder in the first degree against him. The testimony of an eyewitness to one of Creech's previous murders, coupled with psychiatric evidence, tends to prove that the appellant is violent and vengeful and that he experiences no remorse for his actions. Letters written by Creech to law enforcement personnel detail numerous alleged murders beyond those for which he has already been convicted and intimate his intentions to kill in the future. Creech's own statements claim responsibility for approximately 40 murders. However vague the statutory language might be argued to be in the ordinary case (which assertion we have already rejected), nevertheless, as applied in the instant case, we hold beyond any doubt whatsoever that the appellant here has exhibited a propensity to commit murder which will probably constitute a continuing threat to society.
Appellant next asserts that the trial court erred in its findings regarding aggravation and mitigation, in that the court failed to consider the reduced capacity of the defendant at the time of the murder as a mitigating circumstance. Appellant argues that since the court did not mention such evidence in its finding, it must not have considered such evidence. While I.C. § 19-2515(d) directs that "the court shall set forth in writing any mitigating factors considered," the practical effect of that statute is not to require the judge to set out each and every circumstance presented to him in mitigation, but rather, the plain language of the statute, we hold, requires the judge to list that evidence which, in his capacity as a fact finder, he has found to be valid, competent, and pertinent to the issue of whether the death penalty should be imposed. To accept appellant's contention would result in a requirement that the judge set forth in writing every consideration that has been raised or has occurred to him as a potential factor in mitigation, a requirement we deem to be unworkable, impossible, and not to be gleaned from the statutory language.
Clearly, the court heard and considered evidence of appellant's mental status from the testimony of the psychiatrist and the psychologist and from the voluminous information available in the presentence report. The court reasonably concluded that appellant was of average intelligence, that he had exhibited an excessive violent rage in committing the crime, and that he was beyond rehabilitation. The sentencing court is charged with evaluating the expert testimony and will not have its findings reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Simpson v. Johnson, 100 Idaho 357, 597 P.2d 600 (1979); Roemer v. Green Pastures Farms, Inc., 97 Idaho 591, 548 P.2d 857 (1976). This rule of evidence applies in criminal as well as in civil cases. I.C.R. 26. We hold the above findings of the trial court are amply supported by the evidence.
Appellant next asserts that the process of weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, as set forth by I.C. § 19-2515(b), is unconstitutional. Appellant urges us to adopt a standard that, before a death sentence may be imposed, "the sentencing authority must be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that total mitigation is outweighed by total aggravation, and that beyond a reasonable doubt the imposition of death is justified," and that otherwise the penalty must be less than death.
That same contention was dealt with by this Court in State v. Osborn, 102 Idaho 405, 631 P.2d 187 (1981). Osborn is controlling and dispositive here. We there stated:
"The weighing process, in our opinion does not involve shifting the burden of persuasion but is concerned instead with the presentation of relevant information to the sentencer in order that a reasoned and considered decision can be reached. The defendant's burden is merely to raise, in the aggravation-mitigation hearing, any factors which might possibly tend to mitigate his culpability for the offense. He has full opportunity to present and argue those factors. The court below then evaluates those factors under the guidelines set forth in the statute. His decision, including his reasoning, is then set forth in detail and this court reviews the entire process. While it is possible to speak of a 'burden' of persuasion on the defendant to establish why he should receive leniency, we feel that, under our sentencing process, the facts speak for themselves once presented. The completeness of the evaluative process below and the mandatory review by this court, we feel, withstands constitutional scrutiny. Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 415 A.2d 830; 848-50 (1980); State v. Watson, 120 Ariz. 441, 586 P.2d 1253, 1258-9 (1978), cert. den. 440 U.S. 924, 99 S.Ct. 1254, 59 L.Ed.2d 478 (1979)." State v. Osborn, supra, 102 Idaho at 417, 631 P.2d at 199.
Appellant next asserts that Idaho's death penalty provisions are unconstitutional, in that jury participation is not required in the sentencing decision, but rather the discretion to impose a death sentence is vested in a judge. At other places or at other times, juries have been given an inte gral role in imposing the death sentence. However, we hold that jury participation in the sentencing process is not constitutionally required.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), and its progeny have consistently conditioned the validity of death penalty provisions upon their capacity to be consistently, specifically, and non-arbitrarily interpreted. The consensus of the holdings in death penalty cases is that a death penalty scheme fails the constitutional test if it is reasonably susceptible of irregular, wanton, or freakish application, not only as codified by the legislature but also as interpreted by the courts. We deem consistency to be a key requirement in the upholding of death penalty provisions as being constitutional.
On the subject of comparative consistency of judge or jury sentencing, it was stated in Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976):
"This Court has pointed out that jury sentencing in a capital case can perform an important societal function, Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 519 n. 15 [88 S.Ct. 1770, 1775 n. 15, 20 L.Ed.2d 776] (1968), but it has never suggested that jury sentencing is constitutionally required. And it would appear that judicial sentencing should lead, if anything, to even greater consistency in the imposition at the trial court level of capital punishment, since a trial judge is more experienced in sentencing than a jury, and therefore is better able to impose sentences similar to those imposed in analogous cases." Id., 428 U.S. at 252, 96 S.Ct. at 2966 (Stewart, J., joined by Powell and Stevens, JJ.). (Emphasis added.)
See also Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976).
We hold that there is no federal constitutional requirement of jury participation in the sentencing process and that the decision to have jury participation in the sentencing process, as contrasted with judicial discretion sentencing, is within the policy determination of the individual states. We are left to an examination of the exercise of discretion by our legislature in its adoption of policy. Even assuming that it is appropriate for this Court to examine the validity of the legislative policy determination, we would agree with our legislature that judicial control of the sentencing process is preferable to jury participation, in that the constitutionally mandated consistency of result is more probable in the ease of judicial sentencing.
Our attention is drawn to no authority or data, other than the bare assertion of .appellant, which indicates that judges do not reflect community norms. Contrary to what may be the case in some states, Idaho's judges are not ivory tower elitists. Although they may wear the robe and sit on an elevated bench, they nevertheless are elected from the communities in which they are required to reside. Our magistrate judges are required to stand for retention and the percentage of their retention vote is generally assumed to, in part at least, be a result of their community's evaluation of them and the extent to which they comply with the community's norms and values. Indeed, in the last election, a number were evidently not held by the electorate to represent the community norms and values and so were terminated in office. So also our district judges must stand for election every four years, with the resultant oft-contested judicial seats. The outcome of recent elections demonstrates that our district judges are not insulated from their communities and that their positions are anything but lifetime sinecures.
Further, in evaluating our legislatively mandated death penalty sentencing in Idaho, we note that the Supreme Court of the United States has often recognized that legislative enactments are a reliable gauge and "indicia of societal values." Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 288, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 2983, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976), citing Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). We hold that the policy judgment of our legislature, which places capital sentencing discretion in the district judges of our state with mandatory appellate review vested in this Court of statewide jurisdiction, meets any test of constitutionality.
Finally, we turn to the requirements of I.C. § 19-2827, whereby in every death penalty case this Court is enjoined to review the record to ascertain whether passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor has influenced the determination to impose the death sentence and whether the death sentence is excessive or disproportionate to that imposed in similar cases.
We have reviewed three of the more recent cases to come before this Court which have involved the death penalty. In State v. Creech, 99 Idaho 779, 589 P.2d 114 (1979), and State v. Lindquist, 99 Idaho 766, 589 P.2d 101 (1979), although both Creech and Lindquist had been sentenced to death, this Court vacated the death sentences, on the basis that Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976), had effectively invalidated Idaho's then mandatory death penalty statutes. In State v. Needs, 99 Idaho 883, 591 P.2d 130 (1979), this Court affirmed the trial court's holding that at the time defendant Needs was sentenced on her first degree murder conviction, no valid sentencing statute existed for the crime of first degree murder, and hence we affirmed the trial court's maximum sentence for second degree murder.
Since the legislative amendment in 1977 of our death sentence provisions to their present form, only one case has been presented to this Court which dealt with a first degree murder conviction or a homicide sufficiently heinous as to arguably be comparable to the circumstances here as a "similar case" under I.C. § 19-2827, i.e., State v. Osborn, 102 Idaho 405, 631 P.2d 187 (1981). In Osborn, the Court did not find the death sentence to be disproportionately harsh, but remanded to the trial court for findings relating to the mitigating factors.
We conclude that in our consideration of the proportionality of the sentence imposed here, those "similar cases" most nearly comparable are Creech, Lindquist, Needs, and Osborn since, despite the invalidation of the sentences on other grounds, nevertheless the facts and circumstances underlying the imposition of the death penalty in those cases are worthy of consideration in weighing whether the sentence imposed in the instant case is disproportionate.
The death penalty was imposed in Creech I, which resulted from a conviction for two counts of first degree murder. The record there reveals substantially the same personal background of Creech as is shown in the instant case. The circumstances of that offense indicated that Creech was hitchhiking with a female friend and they were given a ride by two men who during the course of the trip were interpreted by Creech as attempting to flirt with his friend. Creech shot the two men in cold blood and threw their bodies off the side of the road. According to the eyewitness, Creech displayed no emotion thereafter and acted as if the killings were of no moment.
Lindquist and the victim's husband conspired to murder the victim for the purpose of collecting life insurance policies. Several attempts were made on the life of the victim and finally Lindquist, at the instance of the victim's husband, met the pregnant victim at a remote site, where he shot her several times through the windows of her car and then completed the killing by pulling her from the car and clubbing her to death.
In Osborn, the defendant had worked with and was a friend of the victim, who had threatened to inform on the defendant for a robbery offense. The victim's partially clothed body was found alongside a road. She had been extensively beaten about the head and face, and shot three times in the head, once in the shoulder, and once in the abdomen.
In Needs, the defendant had previously been convicted of homicide and on several occasions had threatened to kill the victim, who was her husband. She was convicted of the murder of her husband. The remains of the victim consisted of a partially burned torso without head or arms. Although the torso contained numerous stab wounds, they did not cause death, which probably resulted from gunshots, decapitation or a slit throat. As above noted, although the death sentence may well have been justified, it was held that no valid sentencing statute then existed for the crime of first degree murder.
We hold that none of these recent Idaho murder decisions militates toward the granting of leniency in the present case. We find no instance in which a defendant found guilty of such previous crimes as those of Thomas Creech has been found deserving of a sentence less than death. We have examined cases dating back more than 50 years and our examination fails to disclose that any such remorseless, calculating, cold-blooded multiple murderer has (with the exception of Creech I) ever been before this Court. See however, State v. Gretzler, 135 Ariz. 42, 659 P.2d 1 (Ariz.1983). We hold that the death penalty imposed in this case is both proportionate and just.
Although claims of unconstitutional double jeopardy and ex post facto application of law are not raised by appellant, since resentencing has taken place as discussed supra, we have considered such possible problems. We find no constitutional violation in either regard. Knapp v. Cardwell, 667 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 473, 74 L.Ed.2d 621 (1982). See also, State v. Gretzler, supra.
In accord with the foregoing, we affirm the trial court's imposition of the death penalty.
DONALDSON, C.J., and BAKES, J., concur.
. The district judge executed a written document which imposed the death sentence upon Creech. That document was served upon Creech and his counsel. I.C. § 19-2503 and I.C.R. 43(a) require sentence to be pronounced in open court with a defendant and his counsel being present. The district judge did not conform with those requirements. This Court, therefore, by order of the 24th day of February, 1983, vacated said sentence of death and remanded the cause to the district court for the imposition of such sentence as the district judge might find just and appropriate to be imposed upon Creech in open court with Creech and his counsel present. Consistent with that order of remand, the district judge convened the court on the 17th day of March, 1983 and in the presence of Creech and his counsel, imposed the death penalty upon Creech. The execution of that death penalty was stayed pending these proceedings before this Court.
. I.C. § 19-2827(g) instructs this Court to "collect and preserve the records of all cases in which the penalty of death was imposed from and including the year 1975." Further, we are charged with determining in each case "[wjhether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant." I.C. § 19-2827(c)(3). Although we read these provisions as requiring a comparison of the capital cases from 1975 to the present, we have deemed it appropriate to conduct an extensive and thorough review of Idaho murder cases. Our survey has included the following:
State v. Le Page, 102 Idaho 387, 630 P.2d 674 (1981). State v. Osborn, 102 Idaho 405, 631 P.2d 187 (1981); State v. Garcia, 102 Idaho 378, 630 P.2d 665 (1981); State v. Otto, 102 Idaho 250, 629 P.2d 646 (1981); Watkins v. State, 101 Idaho 758, 620 P.2d 792 (1980); State v. Fuchs, 100 Idaho 341, 597 P.2d 227 (1979); State v. Lopez, 100 Idaho 99, 593 P.2d 1003 (1979); State v. Warden, 100 Idaho 21, 592 P.2d 836 (1979); State v. Needs, 99 Idaho 883, 591 P.2d 130 (1979); State v. Creech, 99 Idaho 779, 589 P.2d 114 (1979); State v. Lindquist, 99 Idaho 766, 589 P.2d 101 (1979); State v. Ward, 98 Idaho 571, 569 P.2d 916 (1977); State v. Beason, 95 Idaho 267, 506 P.2d 1340 (1973); State v. Foley, 95 Idaho 222, 506 P.2d 119 (1973); State v. Atwood, 95 Idaho 124, 504 P.2d 397 (1972); State v. Gomez, 94 Idaho 323, 487 P.2d 686 (1971); State v. Radabaugh, 93 Idaho 727, 471 P.2d 582 (1970); State v. Dillon, 93 Idaho 698, 471 P.2d 553 (1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 942, 91 S.Ct. 947, 28 L.Ed.2d 223 (1971); King v. State, 93 Idaho 87, 456 P.2d 254 (1969); State v. Gonzales, 92 Idaho 152, 438 P.2d 897 (1968); Carey v. State, 91 Idaho 706, 429 P.2d 836 (1967); State v. Hall, 86 Idaho 63, 383 P.2d 602 (1963); State v. Clokey, 83 Idaho 322, 364 P.2d 159 (1961); State v. Burris, 80 Idaho 395, 331 P.2d 265 (1958); State v. Snowden, 79 Idaho 266, 313 P.2d 706 (1957); State v. Owen, 73 Idaho 394, 253 P.2d 203 (1953); State v. Buchanan, 73 Idaho 365, 252 P.2d 524 (1953); State v. Golden, 67 Idaho 497, 186 P.2d 485 (1947); State v. Boyatt, 59 Idaho 771, 87 P.2d 992 (1939); State v. Van Vlack, 58 Idaho 248, 71 P.2d 1076 (1937); State v. Reding, 52 Idaho 260, 13 P.2d 253 (1932); State v. Wilson, 41 Idaho 616, 243 P. 359 (1925); State v. Hoagland, 39 Idaho 405, 228 P. 314 (1924); State v. Ramirez, 34 Idaho 623, 203 P. 279 (1921).