Opinion ID: 2652844
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: C.R. 33(b).

Text: 3 The district court’s inclusion of the superfluous language that was sought to be stricken by Lee’s motion essentially amounts to editorializing. The comment that Lee “is a serious pedophile” was not even at issue in the case. While there is no question that Lee had previously been convicted of lewd conduct with a minor under age 16 and was required to register as a sex offender, the question below was whether he had violated I.C. § 18-8309 by failing to provide notice of a change of address. This particular comment was not pertinent to the crime charged, nor was it necessary to indicate why the judgment of acquittal was being entered. While the district judge did not transgress any specific rules of this Court, the Court has endeavored to remove excess and unnecessary verbiage from judgments in the civil arena (I.R.C.P. 54(a)), and they are no more desirable in the criminal arena. Judgments should be limited to stating the disposition of the case. Given the facts of the case―that Lee had cut off his ankle bracelet and absconded―the district court’s comment about the authorities keeping a closer watch on him in the future is certainly understandable. Indeed, the purpose of I.C. § 18-8309 is to allow authorities to do just that. Although Lee certainly violated the spirit of the law, he was the lucky beneficiary of language that was not quite up to the task of covering his particular situation. Nevertheless, the comment made by the district judge in the judgment of acquittal was, again, surplus and unnecessary. Based on the Court’s supervisory power, we conclude that the surplus language should not have been included in the judgment of acquittal in the first place and that when Lee raised the issue in his motion to strike, that motion should have been granted. The Court certainly understands the concerns of the district judge and this opinion is not intended to be regarded in any fashion as a rebuke. Rather, the Court is merely pursuing its effort to exclude unnecessary information or statements from court judgments.