Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A woman was convicted of possessing methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia after police discovered these items during a search of a residence she shared with another individual who was on probation. The search was initiated when a probation officer visited to verify the housemate's residence. The woman answered the door, attempted to refuse entry by shutting the door, but the officer entered regardless and proceeded to search the shared bedroom after both occupants indicated there might be contraband present. The officer found drugs and paraphernalia in the room, and both individuals were charged.Previously, the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, denied the woman's motion to suppress the evidence, rejecting her argument that the search was unlawful under Georgia v. Randolph because she had expressly objected to the entry. The district court also admitted a police body camera video at trial, which included statements from her housemate that allegedly violated her Sixth Amendment confrontation rights under Bruton v. United States. The case proceeded to a joint jury trial, resulting in guilty verdicts for both defendants.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case. It held that the search was lawful because the probationer's waiver of Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of probation allowed officers to enter and search shared areas, even over the objection of a co-occupant. The Court declined to extend the Randolph rule to probation searches, reasoning that co-tenants of probationers have a reduced expectation of privacy. Regarding the confrontation issue, the Court found that admitting the body camera footage was error under Bruton, but determined the error was harmless due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt. The Court affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction. View "State v. Horn" on Justia Law

Police responded to a report of a disturbance at a man’s home, where they learned from his girlfriend that he was a convicted felon in possession of firearms. The man admitted that he knew about the firearms and had purchased two for his children. He led officers through his home, where they recovered three firearms and ammunition. The State charged him with three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.The case progressed through the Idaho courts, beginning with the magistrate court, where the man repeatedly stated he could not afford an attorney and wanted “effective assistance of counsel,” rather than representation. The magistrate court suggested he did not qualify for a public defender due to his employment, and the preliminary hearing proceeded with the defendant unrepresented, after which he was bound over to the district court. Throughout proceedings before the district court, the man continued to appear without counsel, filing many pro se motions. Eventually, after much confusion about his wishes, the district court appointed “shadow counsel” to assist him at trial, but continued to treat him as self-represented. The jury convicted him on all counts, and the district court denied his post-trial motions.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case after the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court held that the appointment of “shadow counsel” did not satisfy the Sixth Amendment right to counsel because the defendant, not an attorney, controlled and managed his defense. The Court further held that the record did not show the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, as required by law. As a result, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. Knight" on Justia Law

Sheryl Robertson was arrested in Custer County, Idaho, for felony possession of methamphetamine and ultimately pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court sentenced her to a ten-year term, retained jurisdiction for one year, and later placed her on probation with additional requirements after she admitted to multiple probation violations. These requirements included completing 100 hours of community service and successfully participating in a treatment court program. Robertson entered the Bonneville County Wood Court but encountered issues with the program and requested transfer to a different treatment court. The State subsequently moved to terminate her participation in Wood Court and revoke her probation, alleging further rule violations.Robertson waived her right to a termination hearing in Wood Court using forms that referenced only the treatment court termination, not probation revocation. The district court proceeded directly to disposition on the alleged probation violation, reasoning that Robertson’s waiver in Wood Court extended to her right to a probation-revocation hearing. Robertson was sentenced to a modified term of incarceration, and she appealed. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, finding that the procedures under the Idaho Rules for Treatment Courts (I.R.T.C.) were followed and provided the required due process, but declined to address whether Robertson had received the process required by the Fourteenth Amendment as articulated in Morrissey v. Brewer.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and held that Robertson’s waiver of her right to a probation-revocation hearing was not knowing and intelligent, as required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The forms she signed did not clearly communicate that waiving the Wood Court termination hearing also constituted a waiver of the right to a probation-revocation hearing. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order revoking probation and imposing a modified sentence, and remanded the case for a probation-revocation hearing. View "State v. Robertson" on Justia Law

A police officer employed by a city suffered injuries during a traffic stop in May 2019. The city, acting as a self-insured employer through a third-party administrator, initially accepted liability for a right hip injury, providing compensation and full salary. Subsequently, the officer developed left hip symptoms, and medical opinions varied on whether these were related to the workplace accident. The employer questioned the connection, declined to authorize further treatment for the left hip, and requested access to medical records and an independent medical examination (IME). After the officer did not cooperate with these requests, the employer sent a letter stating that compensation benefits would be suspended, although the Idaho Industrial Commission later found that no actual suspension occurred.The officer later filed a petition with the Idaho Industrial Commission seeking a declaratory ruling on whether a recent Idaho Supreme Court decision (Arreola v. Scentsy, Inc.) applied retroactively to her situation, which would have affected the employer’s ability to suspend benefits unilaterally. While this petition was pending, the employer filed a complaint with the Commission to resolve disputes about the officer’s entitlement to benefits and failure to attend IMEs. The officer responded with a second petition, challenging the employer’s ability to file such a complaint. The Commission declined to address the first petition on procedural grounds and denied the second on the merits, concluding that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate an employer’s complaint.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the Commission’s denial of the first petition, finding the issue moot because the officer’s benefits had not been suspended and thus there was no live controversy. However, the Court set aside the denial of the second petition, holding that under Idaho’s worker’s compensation law, only employees—not employers—may file a complaint (application for hearing) with the Commission to adjudicate claims regarding unpaid or discontinued compensation or income benefits. View "Coronado v. City of Boise" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance and two related misdemeanors. He and the prosecution entered into a plea agreement under which he would plead guilty to the felony, the misdemeanors would be dismissed, and he would receive a suspended sentence with probation, provided he complied with certain conditions. The agreement included a clause stating it would be “null and void” if the defendant failed to appear for his presentence appointment or sentencing without good cause. After entering his guilty plea, the defendant failed to appear for both the presentence appointment and sentencing, leading to his arrest on a bench warrant.Following these events, the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Nez Perce County, determined that the “null and void” clause released the State and the court from their obligations under the plea agreement, but held that the defendant remained bound by his guilty plea. The court imposed a sentence inconsistent with the plea agreement and did not allow the defendant to withdraw his plea. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment.On review, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho held that the district court erred in its interpretation of the “null and void” clause. The Supreme Court concluded that, under general contract principles, the clause rendered the entire plea agreement unenforceable by either party upon breach, not just by the State. The court further held that, under Idaho Criminal Rule 11(f)(4), once the plea agreement was rendered unenforceable and the court declined to be bound by its terms, the defendant was entitled to an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. Because the district court failed to provide this opportunity, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. McGarvey" on Justia Law

After a 22-year-old man was killed in a car accident caused by a drunk driver, his parents, who were no longer together, each filed separate wrongful death lawsuits. The mother and father’s cases were consolidated and settled before trial, but they could not agree on how to divide the settlement proceeds. The law firm holding the funds initiated an interpleader action to have the court determine the appropriate division. The parents had a complicated history, including periods of estrangement, custody disputes, and issues related to drug use and financial support.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, held an evidentiary hearing and ultimately awarded 75% of the net settlement proceeds to the mother and 25% to the father. The court based its decision on findings that the father had failed to fulfill his parental and legal obligations, including not paying child support, misusing disability payments intended for the child, and engaging in illegal drug use with his son. The court found that the mother had provided more consistent emotional and financial support. The father appealed, arguing that he was entitled to half of the proceeds and that the court erred by considering his past conduct rather than the proper legal standard for wrongful death damages.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and held that the district court erred by not applying the correct legal standard. The Supreme Court clarified that wrongful death damages are forward-looking and intended to compensate for the loss of future support, companionship, and other benefits the decedent would have provided. The court found that the district court improperly based its apportionment on the parents’ past conduct rather than their respective losses. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Rossman Law Group, PLLC v. Holcomb and Carraway" on Justia Law

Lewis Patrick and Michele Sivertson owned and managed Laughing Dog Brewing, Inc. (LDB), which faced financial difficulties in 2017. To address these issues, they, along with affiliated entities AHR, LLC and Fetchingly Good, LLC, engaged attorney Ford Elsaesser to restructure their debt. Elsaesser drafted a promissory note and facilitated the transfer of LDB’s assets to AHR and Fetchingly Good, allegedly without disclosing conflicts of interest or legal risks. After the asset transfer, Fetchingly Good assumed LDB’s operations, and LDB filed for bankruptcy. Acorn Investments, LLC, a creditor with a judgment against LDB, sued the Original Plaintiffs under various theories, including the Idaho Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and racketeering statutes.The litigation between Acorn and the Original Plaintiffs was resolved through a settlement agreement. The Original Plaintiffs stipulated to a judgment in favor of Acorn, but Acorn agreed not to execute on the judgment. Instead, Acorn received an assignment of the Original Plaintiffs’ claims against Elsaesser, including legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Acorn substituted as plaintiff in the malpractice case. Elsaesser moved for summary judgment, arguing that the malpractice claim was not assignable. The District Court of the First Judicial District, Bonner County, agreed and dismissed the case without prejudice, finding the assignment did not meet the exception for assignability established in St. Luke’s Magic Valley Regional Medical Center v. Luciani.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court held that the assignment of the legal malpractice claim to Acorn did not fall within the Luciani exception, which allows assignment only when such claims are transferred as part of a larger commercial transaction involving other business assets and liabilities. Here, only the claims were assigned, not any business assets or obligations. The Court also declined to award attorney fees to either party, but awarded costs to Elsaesser. View "Acorn Investments, LLC v. Elsaesser" on Justia Law

PacifiCorp, a utility company operating a natural gas power plant in Chehalis, Washington, supplies electricity to customers in Idaho. Washington enacted the Climate Commitment Act (CCA), requiring greenhouse gas emitters to purchase emissions allowances. PacifiCorp sought to recover $2.3 million from Idaho customers, representing their share of the costs for these allowances needed to operate the Chehalis plant. The CCA provides “no-cost” allowances exclusively to Washington customers, shielding them from these costs, while PacifiCorp’s Idaho customers would bear the expense for electricity exported from Washington.The Idaho Public Utilities Commission reviewed PacifiCorp’s application under the Energy Cost Adjustment Mechanism (ECAM). The Commission approved recovery of over $60 million in other costs but denied the $2.3 million in CCA allowance costs. It reasoned that, under the 2020 PacifiCorp Inter-Jurisdictional Allocation Protocol, state-specific energy and climate policy costs should be borne by the state enacting them. The Commission also found that passing CCA costs to Idaho customers would violate Idaho Code section 61-502, which requires rates to be just, reasonable, and sufficient, and would create discriminatory customer classes. PacifiCorp’s petition for reconsideration was denied, with the Commission reaffirming its decision on both Protocol and statutory grounds.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho considered whether the Commission’s orders violated PacifiCorp’s constitutional rights, were unsupported by evidence, or were outside the regular pursuit of its authority. The Court held that the Commission acted within its statutory powers and that its decision to disallow recovery of CCA allowance costs from Idaho customers was supported by the record and consistent with its mandate under Idaho Code section 61-502. The Court affirmed the Commission’s orders. View "Pacificorp v. IPUC" on Justia Law

William Weeks was employed as an equipment operator for Oneida County’s Road and Bridge Department in Idaho. In September 2021, during a period of high COVID-19 transmission, Mr. Weeks continued working as required for critical infrastructure employees. He attended daily morning meetings with coworkers in a break room and often visited local stores. After a coworker became ill and missed work, Mr. Weeks developed COVID-19 symptoms, tested positive, and later died from complications. His wife, JaLyn Weeks, filed a worker’s compensation claim, alleging he contracted COVID-19 at work.The employer denied the claim, and Mrs. Weeks brought her case before the Idaho Industrial Commission. At the hearing, both parties presented expert testimony regarding the likely source and timing of Mr. Weeks’ infection. The Commission found the employer’s expert more persuasive, concluding that it was not possible to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Weeks contracted COVID-19 at work rather than from other possible sources, such as visits to stores or contact with individuals outside of work. The Commission denied the claim for medical and death benefits.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed whether the Commission applied the correct legal standard and whether its findings were supported by substantial and competent evidence. The Court held that the Commission properly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard and did not err by refusing to resolve doubts in favor of compensability in occupational disease cases. The Court affirmed the Commission’s decision, holding that Mrs. Weeks failed to prove that Mr. Weeks actually incurred COVID-19 from his employment. The Court did not reach the issue of whether COVID-19 is a compensable occupational disease under Idaho law. View "Weeks v. Oneida County" on Justia Law

A police officer employed by the City of Boise suffered injuries during a traffic stop in 2019, including a right hip injury, which the employer accepted and compensated. Later, the officer developed left hip pain, and her physician initially stated it was unrelated to the work accident, but later opined it was likely related. Disputes arose over medical records and scheduling independent medical examinations (IMEs). The employer, relying on prior Idaho Supreme Court precedent, sent a letter purporting to suspend compensation when the officer did not attend an IME, though the Idaho Industrial Commission later found that no actual suspension occurred. The officer continued to receive salary and some benefits, while her left hip surgery was covered by private insurance.After the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision in Arreola v. Scentsy, Inc., which held only the Commission could order suspension of benefits for failure to attend an IME, the officer sought a declaratory ruling from the Commission regarding retroactive application of Arreola. While that petition was pending, the employer filed a complaint with the Commission to adjudicate issues about the officer’s entitlement to benefits and IME compliance. The officer then filed a second petition, arguing that only employees, not employers, could file such complaints under Idaho’s worker’s compensation law.The Idaho Industrial Commission denied both petitions. It found the first petition was moot because the officer’s benefits were never actually suspended and Arreola applied only prospectively. The Commission denied the second petition on the merits, holding it had jurisdiction to accept complaints from employers under Idaho Code section 72-707 and its own rules.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the Commission’s denial of the first petition, finding no justiciable controversy. However, it set aside the denial of the second petition, holding that only employees may file complaints to request hearings on claims for compensation or income benefits under Idaho Code section 72-706, and the Commission exceeded its powers by allowing employer-initiated complaints in such matters. View "Coronado v. City of Boise" on Justia Law