Opinion ID: 2652844
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: A. The district court erred in denying Lee’s motion to strike. Lee asserts that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, abused its discretion, and violated his right to procedural due process when it denied his motion to strike. Because we 2 hold—pursuant to our supervisory power under the Idaho Constitution—that the district court erred in denying Lee’s motion to strike, Lee’s other arguments need not be considered. This Court has “inherent power under article 5, section 2[,] which vests the judicial power of the state in this Court.” Sunshine Mining Co. v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 105 Idaho 133, 136–37, 666 P.2d 1144, 1147–48 (1983). Article 5, section 2 of the Idaho Constitution reads in part: The judicial power of the state shall be vested in a court for the trial of impeachments, a Supreme Court, district courts, and such other courts inferior to the Supreme Court as established by the legislature. The courts shall constitute a unified and integrated judicial system for administration and supervision by the Supreme Court. Idaho Const. art. V, § 2. The purpose of a unified and integrated judicial system “is to centralize the administrative power of the entire judicial system in the Supreme Court and make the chief justice the administrative head of all courts.” Crooks v. Maynard, 112 Idaho 312, 316, 732 P.2d 281, 285 (1987). In sum, “the Supreme Court, acting through the chief justice is the supervisor for all judicial personnel.” Id. This obviously includes Idaho judges. This case was remanded to the district court for entry of a judgment of acquittal. Lee, 153 Idaho at 563, 286 P.3d at 541. That brings into play Idaho Appellate Rule 38(c), which provides for the filing of a remittitur requiring the district court to comply with the directive of the opinion, 1 and Idaho Criminal Rule 33(b), which sets forth some criteria for criminal judgments. 2 Idaho Criminal Rule 33(b) allows for the inclusion of “findings” in a judgment of conviction, but is silent as to inclusion of findings when a defendant is not guilty. However, all that is necessary in the latter case is to perhaps state why an acquittal or discharge is being ordered. 1 Idaho Appellate Rule 38(c) provides: When the opinion filed has become final in accordance with this rule, the Clerk of the Supreme Court shall issue and file a remittitur with the district court or administrative agency appealed from and mail copies to all parties to the appeal and to the presiding district judge or chairman of the agency. The remittitur shall advise the district court or administrative agency that the opinion has become final and that the district court or administrative agency shall forthwith comply with the directive of the opinion.