the full sentencing of Chad Daybell

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Okay, we are back on the record on CR 22211623, continuing the special sentencing proceeding. The jury has returned its special verdict. The court would note that pursuant to Idaho Code 184004, which is the punishment for murder statute in Idaho, that that crime in murder of the first degree can be punished by death. And under Idaho Code 192515, subsection 7A, that states that if the jury finds that a statutory aggravating circumstance exists and no mitigating circumstances exist, which would make the imposition of the death penalty unjust, the defendant will be sentenced to death by the court. The courts reviewed the findings of the jurors in the special verdict form. They've taken their time through these deliberations to return that verdict. And so the court will proceed with sentencing first on counts one through six. And again, this is an unusual hearing because the sentencing hearing has already been taking place. We've heard from the victims through impact statements and arguments from counsel. That's already taken place. In addition, a pre-sentence investigation report is not to be ordered in these hearings, so the court does not reference that. So the court then orders as follows, and this will be contained in the court's judgment at the conclusion of the case. As to count one, the conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and grand theft by deception for the murder of Tylee Ryan upon the jury's finding of guilty and return of the special verdict form, the jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt and having returned the special verdict that the aggravating circumstances when weighed against the mitigating circumstances do not make the imposition of the death penalty unjust. The court therefore, on count two, the court therefore, on count two, the court therefore, on count two, sentences the defendant to death. On count three, the conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and grand theft, the court, on count three, the conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and grand theft. On count two, the jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt and having returned the special verdict that the aggravating circumstances when weighed against the mitigating circumstances do not make the imposition of the death penalty unjust. The court therefore, on count two, the court therefore, on count two, the court therefore, on count two, sentences the defendant to death. On count three, the conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and grand theft by deception for the murder of J.J. Vallow, the jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt and having returned the special verdict that the aggravating circumstances when weighed against the mitigating circumstances do not make the imposition of the death penalty unjust. The court therefore, on count four, on count four, the court therefore, on count four, on count four, sentences the defendant to death. On count five, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder of Tamra, Tammy Daybell, the jury having found beyond a reasonable doubt and having returned the special verdict that the aggravating circumstances when weighed against the mitigating circumstances do not make the imposition of the death penalty unjust. The court therefore, on count five, sentences the defendant to death. The court's next going to take up counts seven and nine. On count nine on the insurance fraud counts before I do that, from the state, are there any questions regarding the court's judgment as it relates to counts one through six? [00:04:28] Speaker 2: No, your honor. Thank you. [00:04:29] Speaker 1: Questions from the defense. No, your honor. Thank you. All right. Moving on to insurance fraud, then the court will note that I am required to go through a sentencing proceeding on this. These are separate counts that have not been determined in the special verdict form by the jurors. Some brief procedural history. Mr. Daybell was charged by amended indictment with counts seven and nine, insurance fraud under Idaho Code 41293, which is a felony. Mr. Daybell pled not guilty to those counts on June 9th, 2021, thereafter, this trial was held. And as part of the findings of the jury in their verdict, they did find the defendant guilty of both of those counts. The court has considered, in lieu of a pre-sentence investigation report, the information that I've heard throughout this trial. I've also heard information regarding these charges in the previous trial held last year against co-defendant Lori Vallow. I've also heard information received during the special sentencing proceeding relating to those counts as well and have considered that information in lieu of a pre-sentence investigation report. And I'll also note the defendant waived the pre-sentence investigation report and is permitted to do that. And the court can allow that under Criminal Rule 32A. At this time, then, before I move forward with the sentencing on counts seven and nine, I will inquire of the state. Is the state wishing to make any sentencing recommendation as it relates to count seven or nine? [00:06:17] Speaker 2: And, Your Honor, just for clarification, were the insurance frauds count eight and nine? [00:06:22] Speaker 1: As listed in the amended indictment, they are listed as counts seven and count nine. [00:06:28] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:06:30] Speaker 2: Thank you. Co-counsel just clarified for me on that. Your Honor, the state is prepared to make a statement. First, I would indicate for the record that in relation to the sentencing hearing, the sentencing portion handled yesterday, the state did make our best attempts to reach out to all statutory victims to allow them the opportunity to be heard by the court. And those at the state, the court heard from yesterday were the ones that had wished to make impact statements, while not directly related to the insurance fraud. In relation to the insurance fraud charges, in light of the sentence that has been imposed by this court and by the recommendation of the jury, in relation to the other charges, the state would indicate we think that the victim's statements covered everything the state could say while the insurance charges, again, are attenuated to it. We've lost three individuals that we've lost three individuals that the state can do nothing to bring them back. And so the best we can do is move forward in seeking justice on their behalves in relation to the insurance counts themselves, given the sentences. We would recommend this court impose jail time and have that or prison time, excuse me, impose a sentence and run it concurrent with the imposition of the other sentence by this court. We would recommend restitution in the amount of $130,000 to life map and $300,000 to Primerica as part of that we would also recommend a waiver of any fines or court costs in this matter in order to allow restitution to be paid. If any money is available to go towards that all right, thank you for the state sentencing recommendations. [00:08:27] Speaker 1: Mr. Pryor does the defense switch to make sentencing recommendations as to I'll do them collectively counts seven and nine the insurance fraud counts. No, judge, there's nothing further. Thank you, your honor. All right. Is there any objection to the requested restitution amounts of $130,000 and $300,000? Judge, we may need to set that out at this point, but I'll let the court know if that changes. Judge, all right, I'll permit 30 days for the scheduling of a contested hearing on restitution. If that becomes an issue, we could conduct that hearing most likely remotely on a Zoom hearing if it becomes an issue. At this time, I will ask because I need to on these counts. Before I impose any sentence, Mr. Daybell, you do have the right of allocution, which permits you to make a statement on your own behalf. In any mitigation of these offenses, is there any statement you would like to make before I proceed with sentencing on those counts? No. No. Very well. The court, then having considered the information previously referenced, finds that pursuant to Idaho Code 41293, which under subsection 4 indicates a penalty of up to 15 years of prison. On each of those two counts, the court is going to impose a prison sentence of 15 years. So a 15-year sentence will be imposed on count 7. The court will take under advisement the issue of restitution requested by the state. The court will not impose any fines. The court also will impose a 15-year prison sentence on count 9. Also pursuant to the same statute, take under advisement the issue of restitution. The court will note in imposing these prison sentences that I have reviewed Idaho Code 192521, which requires me to go through certain criteria about the imposition of a prison sentence versus a possibility of parole or a lesser sentence. And I would note that the rationale for the prison sentences is that these are intertwined with the murder charges for which the death penalty has been imposed on those counts. And when the court looks at the sentencing factors under 1925-21, I would note in mitigation that Mr. Daybell has been incarcerated an extensively long time in local jail and has a previous law-abiding history. And I have considered that. I've also considered that he's always conducted himself respectfully. From what I've heard from all of the jailers that have ever interacted with him over the years that he's been incarcerated for these charges. However, the court finds under Idaho Code 2521 also that any lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness of these offenses because this life insurance was obtained based on the murders of individuals and procuring life insurance payouts unlawfully. And because of that, it's the most serious offense, the circumstance that could lead to that. In addition, imprisonment will provide an appropriate punishment and deterrent for the defendant and others and will also be a deterrent for the community as well. So the court having then concluded with the sentencing on that, I will not order any fines because the defendant's previously been deemed indigent and has received the death penalty on these murder counts and find it would be futile to have an order of fines in the case. So with those remarks then, the court typically would address the defendant further but in the special sentencing proceeding, the victim impact statements and the evidence has already demonstrated on the record. I think the seriousness of what's occurred, and I don't find any reason to further delve into the court's rationale other than what was listed in the statute. So unless there's anything further, that will conclude the sentencing, but I will address the post-conviction issues that need to be addressed at this time. Does the state have anything further then on the sentences and counts seven and count nine? [00:13:11] Speaker 2: No, Your Honor. Thank you. [00:13:12] Speaker 1: Anything further from the defense? No, Your Honor. Thank you. Mr. Daybell, in this case, given the sentence that was imposed in counts one through six, there's a special appellate and post-conviction procedure for capital cases, and an automatic stay may be in effect. There's a statute that's Idaho Code 192719 that sets out certain deadlines. I am providing you and counsel with a courtesy copy of that statute, but I will note a few of the deadlines that are listed in there. Under subsection one, when the punishment of death is imposed, the time for filing, an appeal shall begin to run when the death warrant is filed. Number two, the death warrant shall not be filed until 42 days after the judgment imposing the death sentence has been filed. Number three, within 42 days of the filing of the judgment imposing the punishment of death, the defendant must file any legal or factual challenges to the sentence of conviction. There's other important and critical deadlines that are contained within that statute, and I am going to provide a copy of that to Mr. Pryor to ensure that the defense is well advised of those post-conviction rights that would apply in this special proceeding. I'll also note that there's an additional rule, Idaho criminal rule. She'll give me a moment. I think it's 44.2. Criminal rule 44.2, and that's the mandatory appointment of counsel for post-conviction review after imposition of justice. The death penalty. That rule is also applicable in your case, and a copy of the rule itself is going to be provided to you in counsel to ensure that you're well aware of any post-conviction rights you may have. With that, then, the court is going to conclude the special sentencing proceeding. Is there anything further I need to take up from the state? [00:15:37] Speaker 2: No, Your Honor, thank you. [00:15:38] Speaker 1: Anything further from the defense? No, Your Honor, thank you. Okay, thank you, everyone, for your abiding by the court's courtroom conduct order. We'll be in recess. [00:15:48] Speaker 2: All right. Thank you all. [00:15:56] Speaker ?: Thank you.