Court Opinion

ID: 9845324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:19:00.086214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:01.216741
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
dissenting, and concurring in part in the separate opinion of Justice JOHNSON:
It is obvious upon reading the majority opinion that a great deal of thought went *561into its crafting. Nevertheless, for reasons which will be discussed below, I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion as it concerns both the conviction and the sentencing of Federico Paz.
I. THE EXCLUSION OF HISPANICS FROM THE JURY POOL
Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1978), reaffirmed a criminal defendant’s right to a jury of peers drawn from a “fair and reasonable representation of the community.” In order to justify the reversal of a conviction on the grounds that the jury failed to represent such a cross-section of the community, a defendant must make a three-pronged showing:
1) [Tjhat the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; 2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and 3) that this under-representation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.
Duren, 439 U.S. at 364, 99 S.Ct. at 668. Once such a prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the state to show “that a significant state interest [is] manifestly and primarily advanced by those aspects of the jury-selection process, such as exemption criteria, that result in the disproportionate exclusion of a distinctive group.” Id., 439 U.S. at 367-68, 99 S.Ct. at 670.
The majority has apparently concluded that Paz made his prima facie case under Duren. That conclusion is not disputed. Where the majority and I part company is in its determination that the state will not be required to meet its rebuttal burden under Duren because “it would be a manifest miscarriage of justice if the state jury selection system was overturned due to the reliance by the State upon Paz’s failure to make out a prima facie case of underrepresentation.” 118 Idaho at 552, 798 P.2d at 11.
In support of its position, the majority has cited a number of cases for variations on the theme that an appellate court is not restricted to considering only the theories raised by the parties if to do so “would result in a miscarriage of justice.” 118 Idaho at 551, 798 P.2d at 10. Unfortunately, the majority’s application of the principle of these cases to the situation at hand is untenable. With one minor exception, every case cited by the majority is a civil case.5 The case before us is, obviously, a capital criminal case. Contrary to the apparent majority belief, civil precedent, no matter how well-reasoned, cannot simply be transposed wholesale into the criminal context. The two traditions are vastly different. They serve different purposes, and the rules which govern each are also vastly different. To assume, as the majority does here, that civil and criminal precedents are interchangeable, is to totally ignore those great differences.
In the criminal context, error which was not raised at trial cannot be raised on appeal unless it constitutes fundamental error. See State v. Cariaga, 95 Idaho 900, 523 P.2d 32 (1974); State v. Haggard, 94 Idaho 249, 486 P.2d 260 (1971). Where fundamental error appears in the record, this Court will consider it even though no objection was raised at trial. Id. Error is fundamental when it “goes to the foundation or basis of a defendant’s rights or ... to the foundation of the case or take[s] from the defendant a right which was essential to his defense and which no court could or ought to permit him to waive.” Smith v. State, 94 Idaho 469, 475 n. 13, 491 P.2d 733, 739 n. 13 (1971), quoting State v. Garcia, 46 N.M. 302, 309, 128 P.2d 459, 462 (1942). Clearly the fundamental error doctrine focuses upon the right of the defendant to a fair trial. To my knowledge, no court has held that trial error committed by *562the state can constitute fundamental error, the commission of which operates to the benefit of the state and to a defendant’s detriment. The failure of the state to present any evidence at trial to fulfill its Duren-imposed rebuttal burden is definitely not fundamental error. To paraphrase a maxim popular among support staff: “Failure to present evidence on the state’s part does not constitute manifest injustice on the Court's part.”
As the majority acknowledges, “[t]he State ran a very substantial risk in relying solely on its claim that Paz failed to establish a prima facie case.” 118 Idaho at 551, 798 P.2d at 10. The State ran the risk, and it lost. It is wholly inappropriate for this Court to become the State’s insurer in the name of manifest injustice.
II.THE VAGUENESS OF “AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES”
Here I stand by my dissent in State v. Charboneau, 116 Idaho 129, 774 P.2d 299 (1989). The majority refuses to tailor the statutorily prescribed aggravating circumstances in any way that would provide guidance to sentencing judges attempting to avoid the “arbitrary and capricious infliction of the death penalty.” Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 1764, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980). The result of this judicial abdication is that sentencing judges have no assistance from this Court in determining “what sets [a] particular murder apart — not from other crimes — but from the ‘norm’ of first degree murder? ” Charboneau, 116 Idaho at 171, 774 P.2d at 341 (Bistline, J., dissenting). “Utter disregard for human life” and “especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manifesting exceptional depravity,” as those terms have been defined by the majority, are “nothing more than kitchen sink aggravating circumstances which enable the state to make every first degree murderer not just a candidate for, but an actual recipient of, the harshest and most final of all criminal penalties.” Id., 116 Idaho at 172, 774 P.2d at' 342.
III.CONSIDERATION OF THE VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT AT SENTENCING
On this issue I am in agreement with Justice Johnson. Permitting errors in capital cases to be reviewed under the harmless error standard will only accentuate the problem with lack of guidance for district judges which has already been discussed herein. The Court in Charboneau recognized this fact when it stated:
In a matter as awesome as the decision whether to impose the death penalty, a strict compliance with the procedures for sentencing is required. Even a well intentioned and conscientious effort by the trial court to avoid considering the hearsay contained in the letter does not suffice.
State v. Charboneau, 116 Idaho 129, 149, 774 P.2d 299, 319 (1989) (emphasis added). The retreat from this position engineered by the majority in today’s opinion is unfortunate.
IV.THE CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE PREVIOUSLY RULED INADMISSIBLE IN AN OREGON PROCEEDING
Part VII of the majority opinion asserts that none of the evidence suppressed in Oregon v. Paz, 31 Or.App. 851, 572 P.2d 1036 (1977), was included in the presentence report considered by the trial court in the instant case against Paz. I disagree, and concur instead in Justice Johnson’s analysis of this issue, which points out both that evidence was included in the presentence report and that the trial court’s consideration of the evidence is apparent.
V.THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE TIME LIMITS IN I.C. § 19-2719
Concern that the 42-day limit of I.C. § 19-2719 would have a devastating affect upon the ability of attorneys to effectively raise and address all of the possible issues in capital cases was first raised in State v. Beam, 115 Idaho 208, 223, 766 P.2d 678, 693 (1988) (Bistline, J. dissenting). Given the current efforts to diminish the availability of federal habeas corpus relief, and recent United States Supreme Court deci*563sions which foreclose argument on certain issues, see, e.g., Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), this concern is even more urgent. As the number of appeal opportunities available to persons sentenced to death grows fewer, it will be increasingly important for them to make the best use of the remaining opportunities by finding all appealable issues at the outset and framing their arguments on those issues effectively. The 42-day limit of I.C. § 19-2719 does not afford defendants anywhere near adequate time to do so. The statute’s time limit is yet another enhancement of the risk that an arbitrary and capricious decision to impose the death penalty will be made and carried out. As such, the time limit violates the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and art. I, §§ 6 and 13 of the Idaho Constitution.
VI. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, both Paz’s conviction and his sentence should be vacated and the cause should be remanded to the trial court.

. Even the one criminal case which is cited does not support the majority's position on this issue. See State v. Hickmann, 273 Or. 358, 540 P.2d 1406, 1407 (1975) ("Since the State did not rely upon ‘consent’ as a basis to justify the warrant-less search at the trial court level or on appeal, the decision of the Court of Appeals [remanding to the trial court for findings on the issue of consent] is reversed.”)