Idaho Criminal Defense Blog : Boise Idaho Criminal Lawyer & Attorney : Chuck Peterson Law Firm : Civil Rights, Trial, Felonies, Assaut, DUI : Boise, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Idaho

 Can parents sue a school district for wrongful death, when their theory of liability is that the district owed their child a duty to supervise her or her killers? The answer here - no.  

In Stoddart v. Pocatello School District, the Idaho Supreme Court (Justice Horton writing the decision) affirms the district court's decision and dismisses the school district from the case, leaving no likely ground for recovery by Cassie Jo Stoddart's family. Still, the decision is predictable. Generally speaking, a case founded on negligence requires proof of a duty owed to the victims; a breach of that duty; proximate cause (the breach must have been a substantial step in bringing about the harm), and resulting damages. The Court acknowledged a duty on the part of the district to take reasonable steps to protect their students from foreseeable harms faced by their students, but found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the harm here was foreseeable.  There is much more here and the decision is very instructive on the law in Idaho (and most other states) as it relates to the duty to protect, so take a quick. There is also mention of an "alternate" basis for the decision - that the duty to protect students that would be imposed on school districts would be enormous were they to rule otherwise.  Justice Horton points out that the decision does not change the duty to protect students when there is specific information establishing a child may be a target for violence. Here, there was not sufficient evidence based on an earlier investigation by the school or facts at the time of the murder. 

The duty to protect arises when there is notice to the district that violence may be directed at a particular child. Foreseeability is again the key - if you can't foresee that there is a real threat, the duty to protect does not arise.  

None of this will help Cassie Jo's parents deal with their tragic loss, and the decision is in no way a reflection on the part of the Court that it views their loss as any less tragic. Still - crime victims cannot always find relief in the civil court processes. If you are a victim of a crime, consult a lawyer about the facts of your situation. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 I decided that I should direct you to an article in today's Idaho Statesman in which Sara Weaver reports that she has forgiven federal agents who shot and killed her mother and brother on Ruby Ridge. I was lucky enough to represent Randy Weaver with Gerry Spence and Garry Gilman when he was charged with the murder of Deputy US Marshal Bill Degan. We also represented Sara and her sisters Rachel and Elisheba in the civil suit that is mentioned in the article.

The Weaver kids had indeed been through hell. They were just little kids at the time, and their entire lives collapsed around them that morning on the mountain. Then they were taken away to live with an aunt in Iowa while their dad sat in a jail in Idaho awaiting trial on charges that he had murdered and conspired and illegally sold sawed-off shotguns.  They had been raised to believe that the government had been taken over by Zionists and that they could not trust anyone in authority. I often wondered if they trusted any of us.

Sara has her own daughter now. Rachel lives in Kalispell and Elisheba - who was held in her dying mother's arms - is in college. Time really does fly. Spence is over eighty years old and still working as a lawyer and writer and teacher at his Trial Lawyer's College. And the globe just keeps on spinning. I am here, still selling reasonable doubt for a reasonable price.

I rode my bicycle past Ruby Ridge in August while participating in Ride Idaho. I stopped at the Naples General Store - where Gerry, Gary and I had stopped and bought a Coke on our way up the Mountain for the first time. Up there we found the cabin and the shed out back where federal agents had shot Randy.  We found the trail where Sammy Weaver had been shot in the back and his dog had been killed and then run over by a tank.

And so little of it has changed. The rugged mountains and wild weather have collapsed the cabin the Government called a "compound." It could withstand the assault by federal agents but not the snow. 

And that place today is still strangely alluring. Lives were lost and lives were changed forever on that mountain. 

Sarah has forgiven most of those involved. I am thankful for that and glad to hear that they have also moved on.  I know that Randy was proud of them then and I am sure he is proud of them today.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 A recent Idaho Court of Appeals decision addresses an issue often raised by clients facing a restitution order following conviction or entry of a plea of guilty to a crime. In State v. Blair, a woman who had been convicted of stealing money from her employer objected to the amount of restitution the court determined she owed. She requested a post-sentencing hearing to determine the actual amount, but the court denied her request and entered an order for $5831.43. On appeal she claimed her due process rights had been denied when the court refused to hold another hearing to determine how much money she owed. The Court of Appeals disagreed and the decision of the trial court was affirmed.

This case is instructive because it succinctly identifies the due process right at issue - a fair procedure for determining the amount of money owed - and points to the restitution statute to flesh out the method used by the law to give both sides an opportunity to be heard on the question. Due process really means just that - before you are deprived of your property, the State must afford you an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way and at a meaningful time. The statute in question permits both sides to present evidence that is relevant to the court's determination of restitution, and does not require the judge to hold another hearing. The "process" due under the statute, to ensure a fair determination, is a hearing where the state and the defendant have the opportunity to be heard on the question. As that is what happened here, the Court's determination was upheld.

If you have a restitution question, take a look at the Blair case. Judge Gutierrez' decision does a nice job of setting out the law and the logical application of the facts to his decision. The case also reminds me of the importance of hammering out the restitution issues with the client before we get to that sentencing hearing.  The State typically sends out copies of the claimed restitution items, and we are usually looking to "make it right" if our client has pleaded guilty or been found guilty because the court will undoubtedly take that fact into account when deciding on the sentence.  Pay the restitution and usually you get a lesser sentence.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link