Court Affirms Grant of New Sentencing Hearing in Capital Case

The Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Shackelford today. In a 43 page opinion, the Court affirmed the first-degree murder convictions and the summary dismissal of the post-conviction petition. However, it also affirmed the district court's grant of a new sentencing hearing, albeit on different grounds than the district court.

I've only skimmed the challenges to the convictions, but Mr. Shackelford gets a resentencing because the jury did not find the existance of any aggravating factors in violation of Ring v. Arizona. The state argued that there was a de facto jury finding because the jury found Mr. Shackelford had committed two murders which, the State argued, met "the criteria for the multiple-murder aggravator, I.C. § 19-2515(h)(2)." The Supreme Court held that it could not enter into such speculation on appeal, writing that:

"To engage in appellate hindsight on this issue, such as that advanced by the State, is constitutionally infirm. First, it violates the jury-trial guarantee for a court to 'hypothesize a guilty verdict that was never in fact rendered—no matter how inescapable the findings to support the verdict might be[.]' Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 (1993). Next, the Sixth Amendment 'requires more than appellate speculation about a hypothetical jury's action.' Id. at 280. Moreover, to accept the State‟s argument would be to look at the form of the jury verdict, rather than the effect of using it to sentence Shackelford to death. Ring instructs that this cannot be done. 536 U.S. at 604."

Congratulations to Leo Griffard on successfully defending the resentencing order.

To get the opinion: http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/shackelford%20final%20opn.pdf