Court Opinion

ID: 9587440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:22:05.612637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:52.741641
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur with the opinion of the Court, except as to the insanity defense. While I concur in that part of the dissent of Justice McDevitt that deals with the unconstitutionality of the abolition of the insanity defense under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, I also would hold independently that the abolition violates the due process clause contained in art. 1, § 13 of the Idaho Constitution.
As this Court said in Cootz v. State, 117 Idaho 38, 40-41, 785 P.2d 163, 165-66 (1989):
We agree that the scope of the Idaho due process clause is not necessarily the same as that of the federal constitution
We note with interest that just 100 years ago when our state constitution was being formulated the question of the inclusion of the due process clause was considered. When the proposed art. 1, § 13 was amended to insert the due process clause, the objection was made that the same language existed in the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Despite this objection, the section containing the due process clause was adopted. Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention of Idaho (1889) 287, 1595. While this does not establish by itself that the scope of our due process clause is different than that of the federal constitution, *640it does indicate that the drafters of our constitution believed that the federal due process clause did not make it unnecessary for our constitution to guarantee due process of law.
We also note that from time to time this Court has said in passing that our constitutional provision relating to due process of law is substantially the same as that of the United States Constitution. E.g., State v. Peterson, 81 Idaho 233, 236, 340 P.2d 444, 446 (1959). However, we find no decision of this Court that has squarely addressed the question of whether the scope of our due process clause is the same as that of the fourteenth amendment. Today, we conclude that the scope is not necessarily the same. We are prepared to consider the parameters of due process under art. 1, § 13 of our constitution without being necessarily bound by the interpretation given to due process by the United States Supreme Court. Cf. State v. Thompson, 114 Idaho 746, 760 P.2d 1162 (1988) (Idaho’s constitutional provision prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures is subject to different interpretation than that given to the fourth amendment.).
We also note that from time to time this Court has decided due process questions with reference to our state constitution only, without considering the scope of the fourteenth amendment. E.g., State v. Evans, 73 Idaho 50, 56, 245 P.2d 788, 791 (1952); White v. Idaho Forest Indus., 98 Idaho 784, 786, 572 P.2d 887, 889 (1977); Melody’s Kitchen v. Harris, 114 Idaho 327, 333, 757 P.2d 190, 196 (1988). These cases are evidence that this Court has not always found it necessary to resort to decisions of the United States Supreme Court under the fourteenth amendment to decide what content we will give to our own due process clause.
The insanity defense was well established in the Territory of Idaho at the time of the Idaho Constitutional Convention and continued to be part of our jurisprudence until the legislature purported to abolish it in 1982. It has been part of the process that was due defendants in criminal cases for virtually the entire existence of our Idaho legal system. It is fundamental to our jurisprudence and is protected by the due process clause of art. 1, § 13.
I am aware that there are other death penalty cases that will be argued before this Court within a matter of days that will again raise the issue of the unconstitutionality of the abolition of the insanity defense. Because the insanity defense is fundamental and because of the awesomeness of death penalty cases, I announce to my brethren on this Court today that I will be prepared to address this issue again in these future death penalty cases, despite the ruling of the Court in this case.
McDEVITT, J., concurs.