Opinion ID: 888507
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The District Court used the mandated statutes correctly

Text: ¶ 23 Rickman correctly notes that the word retribution is not among the sentencing policies articulated in § 46-18-101(2), MCA, or the sentencing principles articulated in § 46-18-101(3), MCA. However, § 46-18-101(2), MCA, states Montana's sentencing policy is to: (a) punish each offender commensurate with the nature and degree of harm caused by the offense and to hold an offender accountable; (b) protect the public, reduce crime, and increase the public sense of safety by incarcerating violent offenders and serious repeat offenders; (c) provide restitution, reparation, and restoration to the victim of the offense[.] Pursuant to § 46-18-101(2)(a), MCA, it is certainly appropriate for the District Court to consider Raftery was merely an innocent victim in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Pursuant to § 46-18-101(2)(c), MCA, it was equally appropriate to consider the impact on Raftery's family. ¶ 24 Further, § 46-18-115(4), MCA, allows the District Court to consider the statements made by Raftery's family. Section 46-18-115(4), MCA, provides: (a) The court shall permit the victim to present a statement concerning the effects of the crime on the victim, the circumstances surrounding the crime, the manner in which the crime was perpetrated, and the victim's opinion regarding appropriate sentence. At the victim's option, the victim may present the statement in writing before the sentencing hearing or orally under oath at the sentencing hearing, or both. (b) The court shall give copies of any written statements of the victim to the prosecutor and the defendant prior to imposing sentence. (c) The court shall consider the victim's statement along with other factors. However, if the victim's statement includes new material facts upon which the court intends to rely, the court shall allow the defendant adequate opportunity to respond and may continue the sentencing hearing if necessary. The District Court was free to consider the statements made by Raftery's family, as well as the information contained in the pre-sentence investigation report (PSI). Section 46-18-112(1)(e), MCA, mandates that the content of the PSI must include a report of the harm caused, as a result of the offense, to the victim, the victim's immediate family, and the community. Contained in the PSI is information regarding Raftery's position in the legal community. However, in the Evaluation/Recommendation portion of the PSI, the reasons given for the sentencing recommendation do not mention who the victim was as a person, but rather focus on the crime itself and Rickman's criminal history. The District Court considered the family statements and the PSI, all of which is allowable by law.