BOISE, Idaho — Bryan Kohberger, the man charged with killing four University of Idaho students, should indeed be subject to the death penalty if he is convicted of first-degree murder, state prosecutors argued in newly filed court documents.

The prosecution laid out its stance why Idaho’s capital punishment laws should apply in the high-profile case, which is now scheduled for trial in August 2025. The trove of filings came in response to Kohberger’s defense team last month challenging a possible death sentence for their client if a jury finds him guilty.

Led by Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, prosecutors issued their intent last year to seek a death sentence for Kohberger. As required under Idaho law, they cited the so-called aggravating factors to justify eligibility for capital punishment, including allegations that Kohberger “exhibited utter disregard for human life” and “a propensity to commit murder which will probably constitute a continuing threat to society.”

Prosecutors this week met a court-imposed deadline to submit objections to the defense’s effort to eliminate the death penalty as a possible sentence. In 13 legal briefs, the prosecution countered thousands of pages filed earlier by the defense that posed myriad arguments, including that the state’s death penalty statute is “unconstitutionally vague,” breaks with modern standards of decency and violates international human rights laws.

“The crux of the defendant’s argument is that there has been a major shift in public opinion regarding the morality, decency, and humanity of the death penalty,” read one filing signed by Thompson and Ingrid Batey, an Idaho special assistant attorney general assigned to the case.

A majority of U.S. states still maintain capital punishment on the books, they wrote, despite the defense’s claims that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of constitutional rights.

“The court should deny the defendant’s motion because this is an issue that has already been ruled upon by the Idaho Supreme Court,” the prosecution argued. “Defendant is asking this court to ignore Idaho precedent as well as precedent set by the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Kohberger, 29, is accused in the stabbing deaths of the four U of I students at an off-campus home in Moscow in November 2022. The victims were Ethan Chapin and Xana Kernodle, both 20, and Madison Mogen and Kaylee Goncavles, both 21.

The three women lived with two other female housemates at the rental house on King Road, which was demolished late last year, and Chapin was staying over for the night with Kernodle, his girlfriend. The two other housemates both went physically unharmed and are widely expected to testify at trial.

At the time of the homicides, Kohberger was living in nearby Pullman, Washington, as a graduate student at Washington State University. He was arrested in late December 2022 at his parents’ home in Pennsylvania during winter break from school, and then brought to Idaho to face the allegations.

Kohberger is charged with four counts of first-degree murder and one count of felony burglary. He is in custody without bond at the Ada County Jail in Boise.

At the defense’s request over concerns of local juror bias in the community where the crime took place, the prior judge granted a venue change for Kohberger’s forthcoming capital murder trial. The Idaho Supreme Court moved the case from Moscow to Boise and assigned it to Judge Steven Hippler of Idaho’s 4th Judicial District.

Prosecution withdraws one death penalty support element

Kohberger’s defense proposed in its prior filings to strike the death penalty that the court break up the criminal court proceedings into three parts: jury trial, death penalty eligibility and sentencing phases. Idaho’s criminal rules generally split death penalty cases into a jury trial and sentencing.

In response, prosecutors rejected the defense’s suggested alternative for how Kohberger might be sentenced to death if jurors first find him guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. They argued that, if adopted, the nontraditional sentencing model in an Idaho capital case would risk “unintended consequences,” besides disregarding longstanding court precedent in the state.

“It defies common sense to believe that the defendant would benefit from a trifurcated proceeding where the jurors would consider whether he poses a risk of future dangerousness and is therefore eligible for the death penalty without hearing all mitigation evidence relevant to that aggravator,” another filing read. “The court should decline to deviate from the procedures described in Idaho Code.”

However, in this week’s briefs, prosecutors withdrew one of the five aggravating factors they originally identified to support seeking the death penalty against Kohberger if he’s found guilty. They previously alleged that he committed murder while perpetrating the crime of burglary and “killed, intended a killing, or acted with reckless indifference to human life.”

In its death penalty challenges, Kohberger’s defense argued that U.S. legal precedent does not allow prosecutors to double-dip on a charge and an aggravating factor when the two linked crimes are burglary and murder.

A charge of burglary — defined in Idaho law as illegally entering a property with the intent to commit theft or any felony — already is rooted in the occurrence of another crime, the defense said. Therefore, that same crime, murder in this case, cannot also be the basis of an aggravating factor where burglary is the only other allegation, wrote defense attorney Jay Logsdon.

“Under Idaho law, a felony murder could not be based upon a burglary whose sole aim is murder,” the defense filing read.

In turn, prosecutors revised their intent to seek the death penalty filing, citing the other four aggravating factors they previously alleged. Under Idaho law, a jury needs to find only a single aggravating factor in the case, including that the crime involved more than one murder, to return a death sentence.

Kohberger’s felony burglary charge remains in place, according to court records.

Prosecutors in this week’s filings also objected to the defense’s plan to use two expert witnesses at a hearing over removing the death penalty scheduled for Nov. 7 at the Ada County Courthouse: U of I law professor Aliza Cover and Dr. Barbara Wolf, a medical examiner licensed in Florida.

Idaho’s court evidentiary rules do not permit such testimony, prosecutors argued.

The defense must file its responses to the prosecution’s death penalty objections by Oct. 24.

_____

©2024 Idaho Statesman. Visit at idahostatesman.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.