Opinion ID: 1206395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: trial court's consideration of certain arrest reports in sentencing appellant

Text: Lastly, appellant urges us to overturn the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the court below. It appears that the sentencing court, in determining the sentence to be imposed, gave consideration to two police arrest reports relating to appellant's prior arrests for burglary and harassment. Appellant argues that the sentencing court was not entitled to consider these arrest reports for two reasons: first, the arrest reports were not contained in the pre-sentence report compiled by the Adult Probation Office, and, second, appellant was denied the opportunity to examine and controvert the arrest reports. With respect to the first ground of argument, appellant maintains that HRS § 706-604 implicitly requires that the sentencing judge may consider only those matters contained in the pre-sentence report when determining the sentence to be imposed upon a defendant. [16] We can find no indication, based upon a reading of HRS § 706-604 and the Commentary corresponding thereto, that the Legislature intended to restrict a sentencing judge solely to the use of data contained within the pre-sentence report. Moreover, such a view would run counter to the established policy that [h]ighly relevant  if not essential  to ... [the judge's] ... selection of an appropriate sentence is the possession of the fullest information possible concerning the defendant's life and characteristics. Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 1083, 93 L.Ed. 1337, reh. denied, 337 U.S. 961, 69 S.Ct. 15, 29, 93 L.Ed. 1760, reh. denied, 338 U.S. 841, 70 S.Ct. 34, 94 L.Ed. 514 (1949). If the existence of pertinent and helpful information comes to the attention of the sentencing judge, he should not be required to disregard it on the mere formality that it is not contained in the pre-sentence report. We conclude that the sentencing court is not limited to any particular source of information in considering the sentence to be imposed upon a defendant. With regard to the second ground of argument, it is clear from the record that appellant and his counsel were given an opportunity to go over the arrest reports at the sentencing hearing, at which time appellant denied the statements contained in the reports. [17] Furthermore, neither appellant nor his counsel asserted during the sentencing proceedings that appellant was being denied the opportunity to fully and fairly examine and controvert or supplement the reports. Therefore, we find appellant's second ground of argument to be without merit. No prejudicial error appearing in the record, the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the court below will not be overturned. Affirmed.