Opinion ID: 1118589
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the court erred in receiving and considering in the sentencing of the defendant the comments of the prosecuting attorney which are unsupported by testimony or other evidence.

Text: The Idaho Judges Sentencing Manual, at page 605, states: The evidence that may be received at a hearing in aggravation or mitigation is restricted by the provisions of Idaho Code § 19-2516. This section provides:' 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.' `If either the prosecution or the defendant insist, the court may not receive any evidence in violation of this section of the code. That means that all evidence must be in the form of live testimony with an opportunity for cross examination, except non-oral testimony in the form of a written pre-sentence investigation report ( State v. Creech, 105 Idaho 362 [670 P.2d 463], 1983.)' Some of the adverse information used by the Judge in the sentencing of the Defendant was of course obtained from the pre-sentence investigation report. But the prosecuting attorney was wrongfully allowed to make opinion statements over the Defendant's objections. `And there's a lot of other snowmobiles that he's obliterated ...' `I would still like to ask about the five snowmobiles in Blackfoot because I think that these two things that he's pled guilty to have to be placed in a pattern. I think the Court has to understand what the significance of his actions were to obliterate the numbers on those snowmobiles.' The prosecutor thereafter attempted to use against the Defendant the very information he gave the police pursuant to his cooperation agreement. The Defense objected, `MR WOOD: Excuse me, Your Honor. I'm going to object to this line of questioning on the basis that he's not charged with things relating to this, this [sic  it's] part of his cooperation agreement that he has revealed these things, and I think it's improper for the prosecution at this point to try to prejudice the case against him by him doing what they have asked him to do.' The court, however, allowed questioning on these things. The Defense again objected, `MR. WOOD: Your Honor, if there's going to be evidence presented here today, I want it to be presented and us have a chance to cross-examine on it. I don't want a conclusionary statement to be given by the prosecution about what he did or didn't do.' The prosecutor thereafter continued to present hearsay/opinion statements: `MR. ODDO: ... Like I said, he met with one investigator and didn't tell him about the five snowmobiles and then met with Sergeant Bunderson the week after that and basically had to have it dragged out of him after Sergeant Bunderson already got information about those five snowmobiles from a different source. I don't know if that sounds to me like cooperation. Yeah, he agreed to show them the five snowmobiles, but after he was confronted. `THE DEFENDANT: I object on that. `MR. WOOD: Likewise, Your Honor. `THE COURT: I'm going to take a short recess ...' . . . . `MR. ODDO: Just a couple of questions, Your Honor  well, I don't know if the Court ruled about whether or not I could ask him questions about the snowmobiles that he had in Blackfoot and whether or not the were  the serial numbers were obliterated on them. `THE COURT: You may ask that question. . . . . `MR. ODDO: ... His son-in-law, who was kind of cooperating with him in these ventures, did some time in the Idaho Department of Corrections, it was on a rider, and I think that this individual should get at least that much time.'