State v. Wood
| Citation | 132 Idaho 88,967 P.2d 702 |
| Decision Date | 09 October 1998 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 21057,22375,s. 21057 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. James E. WOOD, Defendant-Appellant. Boise, December 1996 Term |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
Kehne & Adams Law Office, Boise, for appellant. Rolf M. Kehne argued.
Hon. Alan G. Lance, Attorney General; Lynn E. Thomas, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Lynn E. Thomas argued.
ON DENIAL OF REHEARING.
Substitute Opinion The Court's Prior Opinion Dated June 19, 1998, is Hereby Withdrawn.
This is an appeal of a death sentence imposed upon James Edward Wood on a plea of guilty for the murder of Jeralee Underwood, an eleven-year-old girl. Following imposition of the death sentence, Wood filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was denied. Wood appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief.
On July 6, 1993, Wood was arrested and charged with kidnapping Jeralee Underwood. After hours of interrogation by Police Detective Shaw, he confessed to the kidnapping, attempted rape and murder of Jeralee. Wood also confessed to raping other local girls, to committing several robberies and other killings, and to an attempted murder.
On July 7, 1993, Wood was arraigned and the law firm of Whittier, McDougall, Souza, Murray and Clark was appointed as public defender. A preliminary hearing on the kidnapping charge was set for July 16, 1993. However, on July 12, 1993, an Amended Complaint was filed charging Wood with twelve felonies, including the first-degree murder and kidnapping of Jeralee and several other kidnappings, rapes, and armed robberies. The public defender was also appointed to represent Wood on the Amended Complaint. On that date the public defender filed and served motions for discovery, for continuance of the preliminary hearing, and a waiver of statutory time. This was the public defender's first appearance for Wood and Monte Whittier (Whittier) served as lead counsel.
On August 9, 1993, Whittier filed a Motion to Limit Visitation which was intended to restrict media contact with Wood as he made statements to members of the press that were detrimental to his defense. The motion was granted and an order issued providing that representatives of the media would only be allowed to phone or visit Wood with the prior approval of Whittier. The Sheriff refused to honor Whittier's request to remove a telephone from Wood's cell which Wood used to call members of the press despite Whittier's efforts to persuade him not to speak to the media.
While Wood awaited arraignment, Whittier drafted a three-page contract for Wood's signature for the rights to write a book about Wood and to obtain movie rights. Whittier did not sign the contract and testified that the contract was a hoax. Whittier testified that the contract was a ruse to get Wood to stop talking to the media. At approximately the same time, Whittier organized a press conference at which Wood gave a televised confession to the murder of Jeralee and to other serious charged and uncharged crimes.
Wood waived a preliminary hearing and was bound over to the district court. Wood was arraigned on August 31, 1993, in district court and entered pleas of not guilty to all counts alleged in the Information. A jury trial was set for December 7, 1993. The district court granted defense motions for an investigator and psychiatric examination. Hearings on other defense motions were set for September 14, 1993.
On September 13 or 14, Whittier tape recorded a conversation he had with Wood concerning his plea. In that conversation Wood indicated he wished to change his plea to guilty but said he wanted to have the psychiatric examination completed in order to determine his competency to aid in his own defense before he pled guilty. During this conversation, Whittier told Wood that he represented to the court and prosecution that Wood was competent.
Following a recess at the September 14 hearing and prior to the completion of the psychiatric evaluation, Wood returned to court, withdrew his prior pleas of not guilty and entered guilty pleas to one count of first-degree murder, one count of first-degree kidnapping, and two counts of rape. The remaining charges were dismissed without prejudice. The district court accepted the guilty pleas. The court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) and ordered that the report of defense's psychiatric expert, Dr. Vicky Gregory, be included in the PSI. Whittier did not object.
A sentencing hearing was held on December 7, 1993, during which Whittier presented On January 16, 1994, Whittier appealed the sentence of death.
no mitigating evidence, but Dr. Gregory testified in aggravation for the prosecution. On January 13, 1994, the court issued its decision on the defense's objections to the information in the presentence report, which did not include an objection to the admission of Dr. Gregory's report. On January 14, 1994, the district court issued its findings concerning consideration of the death penalty and sentenced Wood to death for the murder of Jeralee. The court also imposed consecutive terms of fixed life on each of the kidnapping and rapes to which Wood had pled guilty.
On February 7, 1994, Whittier filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, alleging that Wood's death sentence was unconstitutional for reasons related to felony murder. On February 25, 1994, Whittier filed a motion to dismiss the notice of appeal. This Court ordered that ruling on the motion to dismiss the appeal would be reserved and appeal proceedings suspended. The matter was remanded to the district court for a determination of whether Wood was competent to dismiss his appeal.
Subsequently, the motion to dismiss the appeal was withdrawn, Whittier withdrew as counsel for Wood and current counsel was appointed. Counsel filed an Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief on June 20, 1994. Several depositions were taken, and extensions were granted as post-conviction counsel continued to investigate and prepare. At one point the district court eventually denied any further extensions and commenced the post-conviction review trial.
The district judge denied all relief in the post-conviction proceeding. Wood appealed this decision.
WOOD HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT JUDGE WINMILL SHOULD HAVE REFUSED TO SIT ON THE CRIMINAL CASE.
Wood argues that Judge Winmill should have recused himself without motion from either party on the basis that he had close ties to the victims, the lead investigator and other participants in the case. Wood points to the fact that Detective Shaw, the victim and her family, and two of the lawyers in the firm appointed to represent Wood all attended the same church and that the judge saw the victim's father on a regular basis. Further, the judge was required to assess the credibility of several of his fellow church members. In addition, he was required to rule on the admissibility of evidence concerning a purported church doctrine offered to impeach members of the church who claimed that they had never heard of "blood atonement."
The State asserts that "[w]hen issues on appeal are not supported by propositions of law, authority, or argument, they will not be considered." State v. Zichko, 129 Idaho 259, 263, 923 P.2d 966, 970 ( 1996). "A party waives an issue cited on appeal if either authority or argument is lacking, not just if both are lacking." Id. Wood supports this assignment of error with argument but no authority, and, consequently, the State contends that Wood has waived this issue on appeal. However, section 19-2827 of the Idaho Code (I.C.) imposes an affirmative duty on this Court to review the imposition of the death penalty. In addition, this Court must consider possible errors in sentencing that are not raised by the defendant or were not objected to at his trial. State v. Osborn, 102 Idaho 405, 631 P.2d 187 (1981). In Osborn, this Court stated:
[The] general rule applicable to appellate review of error is not necessarily controlling where we are statutorily required to undertake appellate review irrespective of the defendant's contentions, if any. Death is clearly a different kind of punishment from any other that may be imposed, and I.C. § 19-2827 mandates that we examine not only the sentence but the procedure followed in imposing that sentence regardless of whether an appeal is even taken. This indicates to us that we may not ignore unchallenged errors. Moreover, the gravity Id. at 410-11, 631 P.2d at 192-93. Consequently, the Court will consider Wood's claim.
of a sentence of death and the infrequency with which it is imposed outweighs any rationale that might be proposed to justify refusal to consider errors not objected to below.
Although Wood's trial counsel did not move to disqualify Judge Winmill at trial, this Court must still determine if Judge Winmill had an affirmative duty to recuse himself because of his affiliations with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dunlap
...that the exact same evidence could not be relied upon to find more than one statutory aggravating circumstance. State v. Wood, 132 Idaho 88, 104, 967 P.2d 702, 718 (1998) (citations omitted). Dunlap is correct that this Court has consistently held that precisely the same facts cannot suppor......
-
State v. Santiago, No. 17413.
... ... Indeed, the courts of Idaho, Maryland, Mississippi and Ohio have followed Lowenfield in addressing duplication claims raised under their state constitutions. 130 See State v. Wood, 132 Idaho 88, 101103, 967 P.2d 702 (1998), [49 A.3d 663] cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1118, 119 S.Ct. 1768, 143 L.Ed.2d 798 (1999); Grandison v. State, supra, 341 Md. at 19698, 670 A.2d 398; Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 126061 (Miss.1995), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1025, 116 S.Ct. 2565, 135 ... ...
-
State v. Hall
...the sentencing phase or the guilt phase. Id. at 244–45, 108 S.Ct. 546.This Court addressed this argument in State v. Wood , 132 Idaho 88, 102–03, 967 P.2d 702, 716–17 (1998) and concluded that "[t]he Idaho Legislature has narrowed the class of murders that may be punished by death in I.C. §......
-
State v. Abdullah
...present at all stages of a criminal proceeding ‘if absence could, under some set of circumstances, be harmful.’ " State v. Wood, 132 Idaho 88, 108, 967 P.2d 702, 722 (1998) (quoting State v. Crawford, 99 Idaho 87, 95, 577 P.2d 1135, 1143 (1978) ). Without a right to be absent from a proceed......