Court Opinion

ID: 9845182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:16:22.862842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:53.883169
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully disagree with the disposition of this matter by the majority. I disagree with the conclusion of the majority that this case cries out for a psychological evaluation. I think rather there is implicit although unstated the inevitable conclusion that the district judge abused his discretion in sentencing the defendant to the term of 25 years for the crime of rape under the circumstances of this case, and in view of the background of the defendant. Hence it is my opinion that the facts and circumstances must be expanded beyond the brief resume in the majority opinion.
The record indicates that the defendant herein is a highschool graduate. He received an honorable discharge after serving two years in the armed forces. From 1963 to date he has been steadily employed albeit at various jobs. At the time of sentencing he had been employed at a manufacturing plant for approximately one and a half years. His employer was satisfied that he was a good worker and dependable and they were participating in and would pay for defendant’s vocational education in the plumbing field. His employer was aware of the conviction and indicated he would continue to employ defendant if he was granted probation.
Defendant has no prior criminal record other than traffic offenses. Defendant has been married for approximately five years to a woman considerably younger than he. They have a four year old child. Although defendant has supported his family there have been marital difficulties be*856cause of the suspected infidelity of his wife.
There is nothing in the record before this court to indicate that defendant now has or ever has had any mental problem of any kind aside from this one instance of aberrant behavior. No plea indicating any such problem was tendered by defendant. The one instance of anti-social behavior is all that is contained in the record. It is my opinion that the trial judge accepted the recommendation of the pre-sentence specialist and the parole officer, both of whom were female, and who stated:
“Due to the seriousness of this crime and the fact that he used a knife to threaten the woman with her life, it seems that a strict probationary program alone would be very unfeasible. * * * Due to this individual’s lack of understanding to the seriousness of the crime, it is advised that a probationary period alone would not help rehabilitate this individual. He must learn to realize that threatening a person’s life is a very serious crime and that this incident could have had a much more serious ending other than this serious crime of rape.” (Emphasis supplied)
I believe we are reduced to a consideration of possible motives of the trial court such as deterrence, making the defendant aware of the seriousness of the crime (getting his attention) or perhaps making the punishment fit the crime. If these are the factors which motivated the trial judge then a consideration of the actual crime itself is necessary.
The defendant’s wife had left him just a few days before the crime and he was extremely angry. On the night in question the victim’s car had run out of gas at approximately 11 o’clock p. m. in the City of Boise. The defendant offered the victim a ride home. After she got into defendant’s truck she told him that she had changed her mind and wanted to go to a friend’s house but did not know where that house was. Defendant stopped his truck in a city park and held a pocket knife to the victim’s throat while he “started to play around with her body.” He thereafter drove into the hills above Boise and forcibly raped her. Thereafter the defendant returned the victim to her home. Insofar as the record is concerned and aside from the forcible penetration of the victim, she does not appear to have been physically harmed in any other way.
In my judgment the district court erred in imposing a twenty-five year sentence in the state penitentiary for the above described crime. State v. Linebarger, 71 Idaho 255, 232 P.2d 669 (1951); State v. Ledbetter, 83 Idaho 451, 364 P.2d 171 (1961). It is further my judgment that the district court erred in failing to adequately consider the above described background of the defendant and what appears to be his otherwise lack of propensity for criminal or violent behavior. I would affirm the conviction, but reverse the order of commitment and remand the case to the district court with instructions to sentence the defendant to a term of not to exceed five years in the state penitentiary.
BAKES, J., concurring in dissent.