State v. Creech, 12224
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
| Citation | 589 P.2d 114,99 Idaho 779 |
| Docket Number | No. 12224,12224 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. Thomas Eugene CREECH, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 11 January 1979 |
Page 114
v.
Thomas Eugene CREECH, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Respondent.
[99 Idaho 780]
Page 115
Bruce O. Robinson, Nampa, for defendant-appellant and cross-respondent.Wayne L. Kidwell, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent and cross-appellant.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant Thomas Eugene Creech was convicted of two counts of murder in the first degree and was sentenced to death. He appeals alleging that his conviction and sentence must be set aside because (1) Idaho's mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional; (2) the trial court refused to permit him to waive his right to a jury trial; and (3) the trial court improperly dismissed jurors for cause. We affirm appellant's judgment of conviction, but set aside his sentence and remand the case for resentencing.
The trial court sentenced appellant pursuant to a statute which made death the mandatory penalty for first degree murder. Ch. 276, § 2, 1973 Idaho Sess. Laws 588. Subsequent to appellant's sentencing, the United States Supreme Court decided Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976), which held unconstitutional such mandatory death penalties. The statute under which appellant was sentenced is virtually identical to the North Carolina statute held unconstitutional in Woodson. As to Creech's assignment of error concerning the death penalty, for the reasons expressed in the companion case of State of Idaho v. Lindquist, 589 P.2d 101, released today, the judgment of conviction of the defendant-appellant Creech is affirmed, but the sentence of death imposed by the trial court is set aside and the cause remanded to the district court for resentencing.
Appellant contends that his conviction must be reversed because the trial court refused to permit him to waive his right to a jury trial. The Federal Constitution does not guarantee to a criminal defendant the right to waive a jury trial. Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 95 S.Ct. 1055, 43 L.Ed.2d 265 (1975); Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 85 S.Ct. 783, 13 L.Ed.2d 630 (1965). Likewise, the Idaho Constitution does not guarantee the right to waive a jury trial in a felony case. Idaho Const. Art. 1, § 7. Thus, the trial court did not err in refusing to try appellant without a jury.
Finally, appellant argues that his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Creech, s. 14480
...We have reviewed three of the more recent cases to come before this Court which have involved the death penalty. In State v. Creech, 99 Idaho 779, 589 P.2d 114 (1979), and State v. Lindquist, 99 Idaho 766, 589 P.2d 101 (1979), although both Creech and Lindquist had been sentenced to death, ......
-
Creech v. Arave, 86-3983
...to disclose that any such remorseless, calculating, cold-blooded multiple murderer has (with the exception of Creech I [State v. Creech, 589 P.2d 114 (1979) ] ever been before this Court.... We hold that the death penalty imposed in this case is both proportionate and Creech, 670 P.2d at 47......
-
State v. Johns, 16251
...90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986), and Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), and in Idaho in State v. Creech, 99 Idaho 779, 589 P.2d 114 (1979); State v. Shepherd, 94 Idaho 227, 486 P.2d 82 (1971); and State v. Wilson, 41 Idaho 616, 243 P. 359 (1925). Accordingly,......
-
State v. Lindquist, 12218
...to conform to the requirements of the eighth amendment. This simplistic argument also ignores the purpose of the ex post facto clause. [99 Idaho 779] Page 114 The underlying basis for the ex post facto clause is a belief that it would be manifestly unjust to punish as criminal an act which ......