Objection to Standards of Decency Motion

Electronically Filed
10/9/2024 5:16 PM

Fourth Judicial District, Ada County Trent Tripple, Clerk of the Court
By: Jennifer Keyes, Deputy Clerk
LATAH COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, JR., ISB 2613

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

INGRID BATEY, ISB 10022

SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

Latah County Courthouse P.O. Box 8068 Moscow, ID 83843
Phone: (208) 883-2246 paservice@latahcountyid.gov
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE
STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff, Case No. CR01-24-31665
V. STATE'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO STRIKE STATE'S NOTICE OF

BRYAN C. KOHBERGER INTENT TO SEEK DEATH PENALTY ON

Defendant. GROUNDS OF CONTEMPORARY
STANDARDS OF DECENCY

COMES NOW the State of Idaho, by and through the Latah County Prosecuting Attorney, and hereby objects to Defendant's Motion to Strike State's Notice of Intent to Seek Death Penalty on Grounds of Contemporary Standards of Decency. For the following reasons, the Court should deny Defendant's motion.

Analysis The crux of Defendant's argument is that there has been a major shift in public opinion regarding the morality, decency, and humanity of the death penalty. Defendant suggests this shift has taken place among the states, internationally, and among religious and professional organizations. Because of this " shift " in public opinion and the alleged downward trend of the
STATE'S OBJECTION (DECENCY) - 1

application of the death penalty, Defendant argues that the punishment now violates modern standards of decency, ultimately deeming the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenths Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 6 and 13 of the Idaho Constitution.

The Eighth Amendment states “ excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. ” U.S. Const. Amend. VIII. The Eighth Amendment is applicable to the States through the Fourth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 666 (1962). Article I, Section 6 of the Idaho Constitution also prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishments. Capital punishment is not prohibited under the United States Constitution and the States may enact laws specifying that sanction. Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 48 (2008).

When considering whether a punishment violates the Eighth Amendment, the Court first considers " objective indicia of society's standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice to determine whether there is a national consensus against the sentencing practice at issue. " State v. Abdullah, 158 Idaho 386, 455 quoting Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551,572 (2005).

Next, guided by “ the standards elaborated by controlling precedents and by the Court's own understanding and interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's test, history, meaning, and purpose, the Court must determine in the exercise of its own independent judgment whether the punishment in question violates the Constitution. ” Id.

In State v. Abdullah, the Idaho Supreme Court held that Idaho's death penalty scheme does not violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 158 Idaho 386, 455 (2015).

The defendant argued that “ our evolving standards of decency, which mark our progress as a maturing society, no longer support the death penalty as an acceptable sentencing option. ” Id. He
STATE'S OBJECTION (DECENCY) - 2

cited the increasing number of states that have abolished the death penalty or issued moratoriums on scheduled executions, as well as public opinion polls that tend to denounce the death penalty as a sentencing option. Id. The court rejected his claim: “ While [the defendant] may have identified a shift in support for imposition of the death penalty, this shift does not provide objective indicia of society's standards, such as legislative enactments or executive action, to allow this Court to determine that there is a national consensus against the death penalty as a sentence for first-degree murder. " Id.

Defendant's argument here is no different than the argument the court rejected in Abdullah.

A majority of the states, the military, and the federal government continue to allow the death penalty as a sentencing option. See Death Penalty Information Center, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-landing (last visited September 13, 2024). As the court noted in Abdullah, “ [i] t is difficult to regard a practice as objectively intolerable when it is in fact widely tolerated. ” 158 Idaho at 456 (quoting Baze, 553 U.S. at 53).

Conclusion The Court should deny the defendant's motion because this is an issue that has already been ruled upon by the Idaho Supreme Court in State v. Abdullah. Defendant is asking this Court to ignore Idaho precedent as well as precedent set by the Supreme Court of the United States. This Court should deny Defendant's motion.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of October 2024.

In Baty Ingrid Batey Special Assistant Attorney General William W. Thompson, Jr.

Prosecuting Attorney
STATE'S OBJECTION (DECENCY) - 3

CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY

I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the STATE'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO STRIKE STATE'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SEEK DEATH PENALTY ON
GROUNDS OF CONTEMPORARY STANDARDS OF DECENCY was served on the following in the manner indicated below:
Anne Taylor Mailed Attorney at Law E-filed & Served / E-mailed PO Box 2347 Faxed Coeur D Alene, ID 83816-9000 Hand Delivered Dated this 9th day of October 2024.

Kim K Workman KimK. Workman
STATE'S OBJECTION (DECENCY) - 4