Bean v. State

809 P.2d 493, 119 Idaho 632, 1991 Ida. LEXIS 48

• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Decided: April 2, 1991
• Docket: 18605
• Status: Published

Opinions

BAKES, Chief Justice.

This Court, having granted a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in the above entitled matter, affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals, except as hereinafter modified.

The Court of Appeals concluded that, on remand, “The [trial] court shall determine whether Caudill’s recantation is material to the sentence and, if so, whether justice requires the sentence to be changed.” 119 Idaho 506, 809 P.2d 506 (Ct.App.1990). We agree with the Court of Appeals that on remand the first determination which the district court must make is whether or not the changes in Caudill’s testimony are material to the sentence imposed upon Bean, given the fact that Caudill’s revised testimony still implicates Bean as participating in the first degree murder. If the trial court concludes that Caudill’s revised testimony is material to the sentence imposed on Bean, then the trial court must determine whether or not Caudill’s revised testimony is true. If the court determines that it is not, then it may summarily deny relief. However, if the court determines that Caudill’s revised testimony is both material and that it is true, then the court should make the final determination required in the Court of Appeals opinion, i.e., “whether justice requires the sentence to be changed.”

The decision of the Court of Appeals, as herein modified, is affirmed.

JOHNSON, BOYLE and McDEVITT, JJ., concur.