Court Opinion

ID: 9790778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:59:25.901775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:31.521279
License: Public Domain

TROUT, Justice,
concurring in all but Part III; To Part III, concur in part and dissent in part.
I write only to indicate my dissent from that portion of the opinion which remands this case for sentencing before another district judge. While Judge Schilling may have been exposed to information in aggravation which he would not otherwise have heard, I do not believe that it necessitates removing *620Mm from any further consideration of this case. We presume that judges are able to exclude from consideration any improper or inadmissible evidence. “That judges are capable of disregarding that which should be disregarded is a well accepted precept in our judicial system.” Sivak v. State, 112 Idaho 197, 205, 731 P.2d 192, 200 (1986) (citations omitted). Whether a judge’s involvement in a case reaches a point where disqualification from further participation becomes necessary is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge himself. Id. at 207, 731 P.2d at 201. I see no reason to deviate from that principle in this instance.