Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Harmon

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided June 13, 1984No. 14886Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBistline, Justice

I

The Sentence

Although I do concur in upholding the sentence imposed by the district court, I do believe that it may turn out to be excessive. If the defendant is withdrawn from society, then, during that time little children will be safe from his inexcusable activities — which is surely what the district court considered a foremost requirement. Although the majority opinion seems more bent on punishment for the sake of punishment, it is difficult to envision this defendant as a hardened criminal. There ordinarily is insufficient time during which the district court has jurisdiction to alter a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Wainwright v. StoneSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. State v. EvansIdaho Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Richard L. Balthazar v. Superior Court of the Commonwealth of MassachusettsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1978
  4. State v. NieldIdaho Supreme Court · 1984
  5. State v. LopezIdaho Supreme Court · 1977

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API