This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant pleaded guilty to the 1993 murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault of a twelve-year-old girl. The victim was forcibly raped, beaten, and ultimately killed by the Defendant and his co-defendants. The Defendant participated in the murder by attempting to break the victim's neck, strangling her with a belt, and setting her body on fire (paras 2, 27-30).
Procedural History
- District Court, January 19, 1995: The Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, first-degree criminal sexual penetration, conspiracy to commit murder, tampering with evidence, and kidnapping. The plea was accepted by Judge Pope, who was not the assigned judge (paras 2, 5).
- District Court, March 14, 1995: Judge Pearl conducted a sentencing hearing and sentenced the Defendant to death, finding three aggravating circumstances (paras 2, 5).
- Reconstruction Hearing, February 10, 1998: A hearing was held to reconstruct the missing transcript of the plea hearing. The trial court found that the plea was knowing and voluntary, but the Defendant was not present at this hearing (paras 3-4, 14, 36).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the plea was invalid because it was accepted by a judge other than the assigned judge, the missing transcript deprived him of appellate review, the reconstruction hearing was improperly conducted in his absence, and he was not adequately informed of his right to jury sentencing and the requirement of jury unanimity (paras 1, 4, 14, 17).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the acceptance of the plea by a different judge was not error, the missing transcript did not constitute fundamental error, the reconstruction hearing was properly conducted, and the Defendant's waiver of jury sentencing was valid (paras 1, 5-7, 14).
Legal Issues
- Was it an error for a judge other than the assigned judge to accept the Defendant's plea?
- Did the missing transcript of the plea hearing deprive the Defendant of his right to appellate review?
- Was the reconstruction hearing improperly conducted in the Defendant's absence?
- Did the trial court fail to adequately inform the Defendant of his right to jury sentencing and the requirement of jury unanimity?
Disposition
- The Court vacated the Defendant's death sentence and ordered a new reconstruction hearing at which the Defendant must be present.
- The Court held that the Defendant's waiver of jury sentencing was invalid due to the trial court's failure to inform him of the jury unanimity requirement (paras 1, 21-22).
Reasons
Majority Opinion (Per Franchini J., Minzner and Maes JJ. concurring):
Acceptance of Plea by a Different Judge: The Court found no error in Judge Pope accepting the plea, as the rules of criminal procedure do not preclude another judge with jurisdiction from presiding when the assigned judge is unavailable (para 5).
Missing Transcript: The Court held that the missing transcript did not constitute fundamental error because a properly conducted reconstruction hearing could restore the record. However, if reconstruction proves impossible, the plea must be vacated (paras 6-13).
Defendant's Absence from Reconstruction Hearing: The Court determined that the Defendant's absence violated his due process rights, as his presence could have contributed to the accuracy of the reconstructed record. A new reconstruction hearing was ordered, with a different judge presiding (paras 14-16).
Waiver of Jury Sentencing: The Court concluded that the Defendant's waiver of jury sentencing was invalid because he was not informed of the requirement for jury unanimity in imposing a death sentence. This failure constituted fundamental error, necessitating the vacating of the death sentence and a remand for a new sentencing proceeding (paras 17-20).
Dissenting Opinion (Per Serna C.J., Baca J. concurring):
- The dissent argued that the existing reconstructed record was sufficient to review the Defendant's plea and that his absence from the reconstruction hearing did not violate due process, as his interests were adequately represented by counsel. The dissent also disagreed with vacating the death sentence, asserting that the Defendant's waiver of jury sentencing was valid and that there was no requirement to inform him of the jury unanimity rule (paras 23-106).