# State v. Payne

> Idaho Supreme Court · December 15, 2008 · 146 Idaho 548

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9506790

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Darrell Edward PAYNE, Defendant-Appellant; Darrell Edward Payne, Petitioner-Appellant-Cross Respondent, v. State of Idaho, Respondent-Cross Appellant
- **Court:** Idaho Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 15, 2008
- **Citations:** 146 Idaho 548; 199 P.3d 123; 2008 Ida. LEXIS 224
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eismann
- **Judges:** Burdick, Eismann, Jones, Horton
- **Cited by:** 224 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9506790

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding the number of letters from family and friends attached to the PSI were "excessive" and that the full day of victim impact testimony contained many strongly worded "opinions about [defendant], his appropriate punishment and calls to religious authority as the basis for …
- explaining that the state can “constitutionally condition a defendant’s decision to present psychological evidence during the guilt phase of his trial on his waiving constitutional rights”
- holding that the mere fact that counsel could have presented more evidence or more persuasive evidence does not constitute ineffective assistance
- finding the statement “I don’t think I should answer that” as equivocal and 4 insufficient to invoke the right to remain silent
- stating that where there will be no jury trial, the district court is empowered to settle conflicting inferences

## Opinion text

*580 Chief Justice EISMANN,
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion, but write to add the following.
One month prior to the sentencing hearing, the district judge stated in open court that he was unfamiliar with the restrictions that the United States Supreme Court had placed on victim impact evidence. Defense counsel referred him to Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 , 111 S.Ct. 2597 , 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991), and Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987), in which the Supreme Court addressed the admissibility of such evidence. If the district judge read those opinions, he chose not to follow them. Apparently, he also did not attempt to inform himself of the case law on the subject from the federal courts of appeals. Had the district judge become informed of the applicable opinions of the federal courts and chosen to follow those opinions, we would have affirmed Payne’s conviction and sentence. Because of the judge’s failure to do so, the victims will have to go through the trauma of another sentencing hearing.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9506790. Public record. Not legal advice.