jbulger@journalnet.com

BOISE - The Idaho Supreme Court has affirmed a local woman's sentence for harboring her fugitive husband who was killed after an August 2006 shutout that wounded a Pocatello police officer and two probation officers.

The Aug. 31, 2006 incident arose when officers arrived at Melanie Lampien's apartment, looking for her husband, Nicholas McKenna, who was wanted for an outstanding felony probation violation. Lampien met officers outside the apartment and told them she had not seen McKenna and did not know where he was. At the time, McKenna was hiding inside the apartment.

The officers asked Lampien whether McKenna had a gun, and Lampien responded that she did not think so. Suspecting that McKenna was in the apartment, the police and probation officers returned later the same day and entered the apartment to find McKenna brandishing a gun. Probation and Parole officers Jed Dayley and Wally Peterson and Pocatello police officer Matthew Shutes were injured. McKenna was killed.

Lampien was charged with felony harboring a felon. She entered into a plea agreement in which the state agreed to recommend probation without any jail time, based on the prosecution's belief that Lampien did not, in fact, believe McKenna was armed. The three officers involved in the shooting gave victim impact statements during sentencing, urging Sixth District Judge Peter D. McDermott to impose prison time.

McDermott rejected the state's recommendation and sentenced Lampien to a three-year fixed, two-year indeterminate sentence.

After sentencing, Lampien pursued a Rule 35 motion seeking reduction of sentence, which was denied.

Lampien argued in her appeal that the district court erred by allowing the three officers to give victim impact statements, contending they were not victims of her crime and that their testimony breached the state's sentencing recommendation under the plea agreement. The court rejected Lampien's arguments.

Lampien also argued that the state violated the plea agreement by opposing Lampien's Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence.

The Supreme Court concurred, ruling the objection to the motion was tantamount to the state recommending jail time.

The case will be remanded to district court for a new Rule 35 hearing in which the state is ordered to comply with the terms of the plea agreement.