Opinion ID: 1242526
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court Correctly Weighed All Mitigating Circumstances Against the Statutory Aggravator to Support the Imposition of the Death Penalty.

Text: Row contends that the district court failed to follow the requirements of I.C. § 19-2515 and State v. Charboneau, 116 Idaho 129, 774 P.2d 299, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 922, 110 S.Ct. 287, 107 L.Ed.2d 267 (1989), overruled on other grounds, State v. Card, 121 Idaho 425, 825 P.2d 1081 (1991), by declining to weigh each of the remaining three aggravating circumstances against all mitigating factors. Row also submits that the district court incorrectly weighed the death of more than one victim aggravator and the utter disregard aggravator together against all mitigation circumstances instead of weighing each aggravator separately against the mitigation circumstances. In State v. Charboneau , this Court held that the district court must weigh all mitigating circumstances against each of the aggravating circumstances, separately, rather than merely weighing all of the mitigating circumstances against all of the aggravators, collectively. See State v. Leavitt, 116 Idaho 285, 295, 775 P.2d 599, 609 (1989) (Johnson, J., concurring). Here, the district court demonstrated that it understood this process and weighed all mitigating circumstances separately against the multiple murders aggravator. During the weighing process, the district court focused on the aggravating circumstance which it considered the most telling, specifically I.C. § 19-2515(g)(2) that the defendant committed three (3) wilful, deliberate and premeditated first degree murders. After considering the mitigating circumstances raised by Row, the district court concluded that the mitigating factors did not outweigh the multiple murders aggravator found in I.C. § 19-2515(g)(2), and did not make the imposition of the death penalty unjust. Therefore, the district court applied the Charboneau analysis and weighed all of the mitigating circumstances against only the multiple murders aggravator. After applying the Charboneau analysis to the multiple murders aggravator the district court specifically declined to formally weigh each of the remaining three (3) aggravating circumstances against all mitigating factors. We find no error in this regard. As previously stated, the district court was not required to discuss each of the remaining aggravating circumstances that may have existed, once the district court found that the multiple murders statutory aggravating circumstance outweighed the mitigation circumstances and was sufficient to justify imposition of the death penalty. Row also contends that the district court did not consider all of the mitigating circumstances because it did not formally discuss each one. In State v. Creech, 105 Idaho 362, 371-72, 670 P.2d 463, 472-73 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1327, 79 L.Ed.2d 722 (1984), this Court addressed this issue and held that I.C. § 19-2515 does not require the judge to set out each and every circumstance presented in mitigation. Instead, the statute requires the judge to list that evidence which, in his capacity as fact finder, he has found to be valid, competent and pertinent to the issue of whether the death penalty should be imposed. Id. The record shows that the district court's consideration of the mitigation circumstances in this case comported with Creech. Next, Row asserts that the district court incorrectly considered the family relationship between Row and the victims by sometimes referring to Row as a mother and to the deceased youngsters as her children. However, throughout the proceedings, including the sentencing proceedings, Row's counsel attempted to portray her as a good mother who loved her children. In fact, the district court noted that a mitigating circumstance was that Row has been previously described and viewed as a `good mother' and was viewed as a caring and loving mother. We conclude that the district court's discussion of Row's motherhood was in response to mitigation circumstances raised by Row. The district court's consideration of such mitigating evidence was to Row's favor, and in no way suggests any prejudice or discrimination by the district court. Thus, it was not improper for the district court to consider the relationship between Row and the victims while viewing the case in the context of a multiple murder situation.