Court Opinion

ID: 9717757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:09:57.285303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:55.117786
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE STOUDER, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with my colleagues the defendant’s conviction should be affirmed. However, I would remand the case to the trial court for reconsideration of the defendant’s sentence. The majority has presented an excellent discussion of the logical inconsistency of permitting consideration of the defendant’s lack of remorse in face of the right of the defendant to persist in his claim of innocence. The majority has forthrightly concluded that the lack of remorse should not be considered in enhancement of defendant’s sentence where the defendant persists in his innocence. I agree with this reasoning, and I think it should form a part of the objective framework in sentencing determination. However, the majority, after holding that the punishment should not be enhanced by lack of remorse, then concludes that the adverse implications from the remarks of the trial judge were insufficient to show any enhancement of the punishment. In doing so the majority relies heavily on the broad discretion that a sentencing court has in determining the sentence to be imposed. It well may be the broad discretionary authority the trial. court has in sentencing is and should suffice to approve the result reached in this case. If so, then the rule so forthrightly described might well be characterized as a legal truism incapable of enforcement and of no practical significance. From the remarks of the trial judge quoted in the majority opinion, I think the judge was quite concerned about the defendant’s lack of remorse, and his remarks, rather than indicating idle speculation, suggest the substantial significance he attributed to the defendant’s conduct. I think it can be fairly concluded from the observations of the majority. that the erroneous consideration of lack of remorse would rise to the level of prejudicial and reversible error only if the judge quantified the portion of the sentence attributable to the lack of remorse. I am unaware of any quantification rule, and I am skeptical it should be applicable in determining whether reversible error has occurred. No doubt this is a practical resolution of the problem, but I would hope that the unfairness of a sentencing consideration could be recognized when it occurs. I have set forth these remarks with some reluctance, since I am well aware of the limitations placed on appellate courts in the review of sentences as well as the difficulties of applying objective standards to sentencing.