Court Opinion

ID: 9562103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:21:42.226521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:12.592084
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
concurring in the opinion of HUNTLEY, Justice.
As I have always thought, and on occasion remarked, historically Idaho’s district judges, have been leaders in their respective communities. Presently they are the only local judges who truly are of the people, by the people, and for the people. Since so-called court reform some few years back, county judges no longer exist. Other than for district judges, under Idaho’s novel system, commissions have, been established to select for local people those who will judge them. With such thoughts in mind and with a strong perception that the district judge in this case sincerely believed that his sentencing of Mr. Dallas reflected what he knew to be the mores and temperament of his community, my vote nevertheless must be cast to join the views expressed in Justice Huntley’s opinion.
Inherent in any jury verdict are certain factual determinations which necessarily had to have been made. When those facts have once been determined by a jury, a jury under our system being the ultimate finder of fact, it simply cannot be that the presiding judge can at sentencing find his own facts which are at variance with those of the jury.
I am not unaware that Justice Bakes for a majority of three has concocted the philosophy now guiding the Court that a trial judge can base his sentencing findings on an access to a broad range of information to which the jury did not have access in returning its verdict, whereby Justice Bakes has been able to hypothesize that “the findings of the jury, and the findings of the trial judge, are not inconsistent; rather, they are based on different ranges *685of information.” State v. Sivak, 105 Idaho 900, 907, 674 P.2d 396, 403 (1983). That philosophy is as dangerous to a fair administration of criminal justice as any doctrine heretofore conceived, of which I naively hoped to convince the Sivak majority. 105 Idaho at 917, 674 P.2d at 413. The passage of time and our review of additional similar cases has only served to heighten my concern. On that day in Idaho when the sentencing judge is allowed to hear and consider no evidence that would not be admissible in a court of law, to not coin a phrase, but meaning admissible in a jury trial, that will be a happy day. To those who are new to the practice of law in Idaho in the past three years, or who have not felt enough concern to have done so, I commend a reading of State v. Moore, 93 Idaho 14, 454 P.2d 51 (1969), and also Sivak, supra, 105 Idaho at 920, 674 P.2d at 416, where is explained the history of how the holding of that case, of benefit to defendants, has become distorted into an instrument to be used against them.
On the matter of attorney’s fees, I am surprised that the majority makes no response to that which Justice Huntley has written suggesting that Mr. Mauk has been grossly under-compensated. On that score I add only that on other cases before us I have suggested that the legislature has mandated that an indigent have the same representation that he would have were he not pecuniarily disadvantaged. Without looking back, I may have suggested that in any capital case there should never be the occasion when a single practitioner is obliged to carry the awesome burden of defending in capital cases. It is too much responsibility, and many courts in other jurisdictions have recognized this. There is also reason to believe that the need for at least two counsel to shoulder the responsibility has been recognized in Idaho since early times. One would like to think that a statute which has been on the books for 121 years might have some persuasion in this area of the law. I refer to I.C. § 19-2103, which provides:
Argument to jury. — If the indictment is for an offense punishable with death, two (2) counsel on each side may argue the cause to the jury. If it is for any other offense, the court may, in its discretion, restrict the argument to one (1) counsel on each side.
Most obviously, even before statehood and afterward, it was understood that no person would ever be defended in a capital case with less than two counsel. I suggest that if you will bring to me an attorney from the ranks who will knowingly and voluntarily endeavor to single-handedly represent such a defendant, I will show you a person who has not acted intelligently. For my part, I would not hesitate to refuse an appointment to be sole counsel for a person charged with an offense punishable by death. To so proceed would, in my humble opinion, be tantamount to furnishing the accused with the immediate means of his self-destruction. Mr. Mauk obviously played a significant part in the defense of Mr. Dallas, and he should be compensated accordingly. That he will not be is something he can no doubt live with, but I do not believe the judicial system should be sent the message which the majority this day transmits.