Court Opinion

ID: 9546163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:25:42.825274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:03.879543
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Justice,
concurs in part and dissents in part.
I concur in the opinion of the Court except as to Part VII — was the death sentence properly imposed — and as to Part VII I dissent.
The majority opinion concludes “that the sentence of death is excessive and disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.” However, the majority, in my view, is in effect overturning the trial judge’s decision as to aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
The majority focuses upon Scroggins’ level of participation in the crime. The majority ignores the testimony of Bean who testified clearly that the killing was committed by Scroggins. Scroggins’ testimony as to the commission of the crime is *390equivocal, evasive, and contradictory to pri- or statements made by him. The trial court had before it evidence indicating that Scroggins was the instigator and the driving force behind the commission of the crime.
The majority focuses also upon the “chaotic and troubled childhood” of Scroggins and indicates that he is under “tremendous psychological pressure and has failed to develop mature responses to stressful situations.” The troubled childhood of Scrog-gins is exemplified by almost continual psychological problems and attempts at counseling, none of which were resolved, and have resulted in a series of commitments to juvenile facilities in several states. He has. had more or less continual conflicts with the law in criminal activity, albeit as a juvenile, some of which contacts were as a result of felonious activities. The trial court had further evidence before it that indicated that Scroggins showed little emotion or remorse for the crimes; that Scrog-gins is unpredictable and dangerous to others and will constitute a continuing danger to society; that Scroggins will, in the future, undoubtedly give in to unrestrained sexual gratification and or aggression; that sexual deviation was a large factor in the instant crime; and that he will never become a functional member of society. It was further indicated that Scroggins has a prepsychotic personality with a predisposition towards paranoid schozophrenia, and is unpredictable and dangerous to others.
Although there is no showing that Scrog-gins’ mental status in any way constitutes any legal or practical excuse or defense for the crime, it nevertheless, in my view, indicates that he is and will continue to be a non-functional member of society, and is and will continue to be extremely dangerous, with the potential for further crimes of violence even if incarcerated for the rest of his life.
Even though the majority opinion purports to reverse the importance of the death penalty on the basis of proportionality, it fails to discuss any similar cases decided by the Court in the recent past such as State v. Paradis, 106 Idaho 117, 676 P.2d 31 (1983); State v. Gibson, 106 Idaho 54, 675 P.2d 33 (1983); State v. Sivak, 105 Idaho 900, 674 P.2d 396 (1983); and State v. Stuart, 110 Idaho 163, 715 P.2d 833 (1985), all of which are not substantially dissimilar to the instant case, and in all of which the imposition of the death penalty was upheld.