concurring and concurring in the result.
I concur in parts I, II, III, IV, and V of the Court’s opinion.
I concur in the result of part VI (Automatic Review Under I.C. § 19-2827). The approach I take in determining whether the death sentence imposed in this case is excessive or disproportionate is outlined in my concurring and dissenting opinion in State v. Card, 121 Idaho 425, 448-459, 825 P.2d 1081, 1104-1115 (1992). Appended to my opinion in the present case is an updated summary of the cases I have considered.
The cases I find most similar to this one so far as the crime is concerned are:
1. State v. Card (death penalty imposed).
2. State v. Searcy (determinate life sentence imposed)
3. State v. McKinney (death penalty imposed).
4. State v. Bainbridge (determinate life sentence imposed)
5. State v. Rhoades (Michelbacher and Baldwin eases) (death penalties imposed).
In Searcy and Bainbridge, the circumstances of the defendant were mitigating and seem to explain why the trial court did not impose the death penalty. On the basis of the comparison of Card, McKinney, and Rhoades, I find the death sentence imposed on Dunlap not to be excessive or disproportionate.
The cases I find most similar to this one so far as the circumstances of the defendant are concerned are:
1. State v. Pizzuto (death penalty imposed).
2. State v. Paz (death penalty imposed).
3. State v. Lankford (death penalty imposed).
On the basis of this comparison of these cases in which the circumstances of the defendant are similar to Dunlap, I find the death sentence imposed on Dunlap not to be excessive or disproportionate.
[[Image here]]
*540[[Image here]]
*541[[Image here]]
*542[[Image here]]
*543[[Image here]]
*544[[Image here]]
*545[[Image here]]
*546[[Image here]]