Court Opinion

ID: 9546154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:25:38.480546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:03.535024
License: Public Domain

HUNTLEY, Justice,
specially concurring.
Iconcur in the majority opinion with three reservations which do not affect my concurring with the result reached by the majority.
First, as to Part IV, I believe there was an improper variance between the information and the instructions and verdict, but since the evidence is overwhelming that there was a felony-murder committed, retrial would serve no purpose.
Second, as to Part VI concerning the constitutional requirement that the jury be involved in the sentencing process, I remain of the view expressed in my dissents in State v. Sivak, 105 Idaho at 921, 674 P.2d at 417 (1983); and State v. Creech, 105 Idaho 362, 375-419, 670 P.2d 463, 476-520 (1985).
Third, as to Part VII, I am of the opinion that imposition of the death penalty in this case would be constitutionally impermissible under the mandate of Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982).