Court Opinion

ID: 9536576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:02:46.866699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:47.139478
License: Public Domain

BAKES, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
Unless this Court is not going to follow its decision in State v. Randolph, 61 Idaho 456, 102 P.2d 913 (1940), which held that the ensuing death of an assault victim constitutes a new act, thus precluding the defense of double jeopardy on a later prosecution for murder, it would seem that such *563death would also constitute a new act for that portion of I.C. § 18-301 referring to multiple punishment. I.C. § 18-301 appears to adopt a “same act” test for double punishment, just the same as it does for double jeopardy. Therefore, if State v. Randolph, supra, still retains its vitality, as the majority say that it does, then Brusseau was not prosecuted or punished for the same act in the subsequent murder prosecution, and both convictions should be affirmed.