holding that a capital defendant does not have confrontation rights in a penalty hearing
How later courts described this case
- holding that a capital defendant does not have confrontation rights in a penalty hearing
- continuing to rely on Williams in assessing a defendant’s right to confrontation at sentencing, albeit under the Sixth Amendment
- vacating robbery conviction that merged into felony murder conviction
- whether a charged offense is a lesser included offense of another charged offense is analyzed in reference to the facts of each case
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HUNTLEY, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in Parts I through VIII of the majority opinion while noting that, with respect to Part I, relative to the resentencing hearing, that the dissent of Justice Bistline herein correctly states the circumstances which justified the trial court in construing this court’s directions in the way it did.
I dissent as to Part IX for the reasons set forth in my dissents in State v. Creech, 105 Idaho 362 , 670 P.2d 463 (1983), and State v. Sivak, 105 Idaho 900 , 674 P.2d 396 (1983).