Victims' rights debate is far from over in Idaho

No one ever would oppose the rights of crime victims or their families.

Exactly what that means in a legal sense, however, led to a contentious battle in an Idaho House committee — and virtually everyone involved with the Legislature left the 2017 session feeling certain the issue will surface again next January.

Why?

The House State Affairs Committee voted 10-5 to kill a resolution that would amend the state constitution, not long after the full Senate had approved it 34-0.

Although the bickering became confusing at times, the background to this dispute is fairly simple.

In an attempt to update and strengthen victims’ rights throughout the entire legal process, Sen. Todd Lakey, R-Nampa, passionately made the case for a version of California’s now-famous “Marsy’s Law.”

“It simply says that a victim has an opportunity to be heard,” Lakey said. “It’s an effort to give crime victims an effective voice in a criminal justice system they wish they’d never been involved in.”

The Senate ultimately agreed unanimously to send SJR 103 to the House. The bill contained many provisions of “Marsy’s Law,” the California Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008.

In legal shorthand, the act expanded the rights of crime victims in the judicial process — including the right to legal standing, protection from the defendant, notification of all court proceedings and restitution in some cases.

The California amendment was championed by Henry Nicholas, whose sister, Marsy, was murdered in 1983. A week after Marsy’s death, Nicholas and his mother met the alleged killer in a grocery store — having no idea that he had been granted bail.

Several states have followed California’s lead in amending their constitutions, including Illinois, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota.

After the Idaho Senate’s approval, however, the House State Affairs Committee found flaws with the resolution, fought over it for three full days and eventually killed it.

“Most of the protections mentioned are already present in our constitution,” said Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens. “It’s simply not necessary to go to these lengths and have a costly election.

“If there is wording that needs to be added to what is already a very strong constitution, then that tweaking can be done by statute in the Legislature.”

Barbieri was particularly upset by the notion Idaho lawmakers should disregard their own constitution simply because of a high-profile nationwide campaign led by Nicholas.

“Are we supposed to change our constitution on the word of some California billionaire?” Barbieri asked. “Our victims’ rights already include scrutiny every step of the way.”

Kootenai County legislators were hardly unanimous in opposing the bill.

Rep. Luke Malek, R-Coeur d’Alene, was asked — as a former prosecutor — to address the State Affairs Committee as it considered the potential amendment.

Malek makes no bones about being in favor of the change.

“The biggest difference with the amendment would be in the area of communication,” Malek said. “Families of victims, and potential victims, need to be aware of what’s happening throughout the process, and be notified in a timely manner.”

Malek used an opposite brand of logic to dismiss Barbieri’s notion of fixing any problems in the Legislature.

“Very simply, the constitution is always going to trump any individual statute,” Malek said. ”If these rights are codified in the constitution and it means that some areas of law enforcement, prosecution or the judiciary need further resources, then those resources would have to be made available.”

Even Lakey conceded there would be a cost for additional resources if the amendment were adopted, but said the amount would be “hard to quantify.”

And although many law enforcement agencies endorsed the amendment, Coeur d’Alene Police Chief Lee White said he preferred to study the issue further — noting he’d been notified of the bill fairly late in the process.

“Generally speaking, I don’t think any one-size-fits-all solution is a great answer,” White said. “As for this particular amendment, the devil’s in the details, and there are some areas where we don’t have those details.”

Like all law enforcement officials, White indicated he wanted his force to be a leader in protecting victims’ rights.

“In our budget requests, we’ve asked for a victim advocate position,” White said, “but so far, it hasn’t happened because of financial restraints.

“Overall, though, I believe our city and county do everything possible to keep victims’ rights high in our priorities.”