Court Opinion

ID: 9744953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:24:50.07774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:53.735612
License: Public Domain

*400Concurring Opinion
DeBruler, J.
There are considerations, in addition to those identified by the majority opinion, which could reasonably have supported the Legislature’s decision that juries should not have pre-sentence reports before them when making significant sentencing choices. Indiana Code §§ 35-8-1A-10 and 35-8-1A-11, Burns §§ 9-2252 and 9-2252a, describe the contents of such reports:
“The presentence investigation consists of the gathering of information with respect to the circumstances attending the commission of the offense, the convicted person’s history of delinquency or criminality, social history, employment history, family situation, economic status, education and personal habits. Such investigation may also include any other matter which the probation officer conducting the investigation deems relevant to the question of sentence, and must include any matters the court directs to be included.” § 35-8-1A-10
“The court may order that the convicted person undergo a thorough physical or mental examination in a designated facility as part of the presentence investigation. . . § 35-8-1 A-ll
Judging from this description, the scope of such an investigation is practically unlimited. The pre-sentence report could include references to past arrests, other pending-charges, dishonorable discharges from the military forces, probation violations, suspensions from school, prior acts of juvenile delinquency, license revocations, quasi-criminal convictions for contempt of court or failure to support, or a multitude of other matters relating to past occasions on which the defendant found himself at odds with official authority. Because of his experience and knowledge of the law, and his acquaintance with those engaged in the investigating and reporting, a judge quickly places such confrontations with official authority upon a proper priority continuum. A judge also bases his sentencing choices upon his knowledge of norms which establish themselves in this area. The jury on the other hand is usually bereft of such experience or knowledge. The Legislature may well have concluded that jurors have no *401basis in knowledge or experience to judge accurately a vast portion of the material which is included in the report, and, therefore, to present them with such information is to invite an unreasonable choice either much too lenient or much too severe. Such a result would be at odds with the purpose of the pre-sentence statute.
Prentice, J., concurs.
Note. — Reported at 345 N.E.2d 229.