Objection to Defendant's Motion Regarding Aggravating Evidence

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

JEFF NYE, ISB 9238

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

Case No. CR01-24-31665
STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff, STATE'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S
MOTION REGARDING NONSTATUTORY

V. AGGRAVATING EVIDENCE

BRYAN C. KOHBERGER

Defendant.

COMES NOW the State of Idaho, by and through the Latah County Prosecuting Attorney, and hereby objects to Defendant's Motion for Court Order Requiring the State: (1) to Provide Notice of Every Alleged Nonstatutory Aggravating Fact / Circumstance It May Rely on at Any Sentencing Trial; and (2) to Prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Every Alleged Nonstatutory Aggravating Fact / Circumstance (“ Motion ”). Defendant's requested notice is already governed by I.C. § 19-2515 (6), and Defendant's argument that the State must prove nonstatutory aggravating evidence beyond a reasonable doubt conflicts with Idaho Supreme Court precedent.

STATE'S OBJECTION – (NONSTATUTORY

AGGRAVATING EVIDENCE) - 1

A. Idaho's Capital Sentencing Scheme Sets the Appropriate Standard for Notice.

Idaho's capital sentencing scheme dictates the appropriate notice that each side must give for all evidence it intends to introduce at the sentencing phase in a capital case. The statute governing the special sentencing proceeding states that “ the state and the defendant shall be entitled to present all relevant evidence in aggravation and mitigation. ” I.C. § 19-2515 (6). The phrase " all relevant evidence ” in the statute includes non-statutory aggravating evidence. See State v. Hall, 163 Idaho 744, 795-99, 419 P.3d 1042, 1093-97 (2018). The statute requires the disclosure of all evidence either side intends to rely on at the special sentencing proceeding “ in accordance with Idaho criminal rule 16. ” I.C. § 19-2515 (6).

Defendant cites this statute approvingly (Mot. at 6), and it is unclear to the State what more Defendant seeks. To the extent Defendant is requesting more notice than the notice required by the statute, this Court should reject Defendant's request.

B. The State Does Not Have to Prove Nonstatutory Aggravating Evidence Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

Idaho's capital sentencing scheme requires the State to prove at least one statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, but it does not require the State to prove nonstatutory aggravating evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. See Hall, 163 Idaho at 797, 419 P.3d at 1096. In Hall, the court reaffirmed that the factfinder in a special sentencing proceeding can consider “ circumstances not statutorily listed and not expressly found beyond a reasonable doubt. " Id. (quoting State v. Creech, 105 Idaho 362, 369, 670 P.2d 463, 470 (1983)). Moreover, the statute governing the special sentencing proceeding lays out in detail what the jury must find for a sentence of death, including that it must find the State proved the existence of at least one statutory aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt. See I.C. § 19-2515. Entirely absent from the statute
STATE'S OBJECTION – (NONSTATUTORY

AGGRAVATING EVIDENCE) - 2

is any mention of proving nonstatutory aggravating evidence, much less proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. See id.

Defendant supports his argument by citing a case that provides no support at all. (Mot. at 8-9 (citing People v. Tenneson, 788 P.2d 786, 792 (Colo. 1990).) Tennison did not address nonstatutory aggravating evidence; it held only that the jury " must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that any mitigating factors do not outweigh the proven statutory aggravating factors before a sentence of death can be imposed. " 788 P.2d at 792 (emphasis added).

Thus, this Court should deny Defendant's request for an order that the State must prove nonstatutory aggravating evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of October 2024.

Jeff Nye Special Assistant Attorney General Wilham W. Thompson, Jr.

Prosecuting Attorney
STATE'S OBJECTION – (NONSTATUTORY

AGGRAVATING EVIDENCE) - 3

CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY

I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the STATE'S OBJECTION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION REGARDING NONSTATUTORY AGGRAVATING EVIDENCE
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 Kin K. Workman
STATE'S OBJECTION – (NONSTATUTORY

AGGRAVATING EVIDENCE) - 4