Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A jury found David Johnson guilty of two counts of lewd conduct with a minor child under sixteen. Johnson appeals, arguing that the district court erred in multiple ways requiring his convictions be vacated. Finding no reversible error after review of the trial court record, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed Johnson’s convictions. View "Idaho v. Johnson" on Justia Law

This case addressed whether a defendant accused of DUI could present expert testimony regarding his alcohol concentration at the time he was driving. In April 2015, a Sheriff’s Deputy pulled Justin Austin over for failure to use a turn signal. During the stop, the deputy detected the smell of alcohol, and Austin’s appearance further led the deputy to believe he was driving under the influence. After performing a field sobriety test, he arrested Austin and approximately thirty minutes after the initial stop conducted two breath tests that demonstrated alcohol concentrations above Idaho’s legal limit. Austin claimed that his consumption of three drinks in a short period of time just before the stop contributed to a rising alcohol concentration as he waited for the breath tests, and sought to introduce expert testimony to that effect. The district court granted the State’s motion in limine to exclude expert testimony as to his actual alcohol concentration as irrelevant under the DUI statute’s “per se” provision as interpreted by Idaho precedent. On appeal, Austin challenged the decision to grant the State’s motion, and alternatively challenged the DUI statute as overbroad or void for vagueness where there was no time limit within which approved alcohol concentration testing must be done to be used as evidence of a crime. The district court applied binding case law to grant the motion in limine. The Idaho Supreme Court clarified the law and felt compelled to hold that the district court’s decision to grant the State’s motion in limine constituted an abuse of discretion because it was not consistent with the legal standard now clarified. Accordingly, the Court vacated Austin’s conviction. View "Idaho v. Austin" on Justia Law

Gracie Tryon appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Tryon argued the district court erred when it admitted certain statements regarding the identity of the alleged controlled substance. Tryon claimed the admission of these statements violated her constitutional right to confront witnesses against her because the declarant was unavailable and she did not have a prior opportunity to cross-examine him. Tryon also asserted that the State did not present sufficient evidence to support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance. After review of the trial court record, the Idaho Supreme Court concluded the evidence in the record did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Tryon was in possession of a controlled substance. Tryon's sentence was vacated and the case remanded for the trial court to enter judgment of acquittal. View "Idaho v. Tryon" on Justia Law

Gracie Tryon appealed her conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Tryon argued the district court erred when it admitted certain statements regarding the identity of the alleged controlled substance. Tryon claimed the admission of these statements violated her constitutional right to confront witnesses against her because the declarant was unavailable and she did not have a prior opportunity to cross-examine him. Tryon also asserted that the State did not present sufficient evidence to support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance. After review of the trial court record, the Idaho Supreme Court concluded the evidence in the record did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Tryon was in possession of a controlled substance. Tryon's sentence was vacated and the case remanded for the trial court to enter judgment of acquittal. View "Idaho v. Tryon" on Justia Law

The State of Idaho appealed a district court decision suppressing evidence found during a search of Brody Jaskowski’s pickup. Relying on Idaho v. Turek, 250 P.3d 796 (Ct. App. 2011), the district court held that Jaskowski’s probation agreement required that his probation officer request that Jaskowski submit to a search. The district court found that the probation officer did not make such a request of Jaskowski before searching his vehicle. Therefore, the district court suppressed evidence discovered in the course of the search. Finding no reversible error in that district court decision, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed it. View "Idaho v. Jaskowski" on Justia Law

On February 14, 2016, after drinking, Roy Baxter “backhanded [his] wife in the throat area” while the two were driving in his car. When they stopped driving and got out of his car, they continued arguing, and Baxter “threatened to kill her and punched her in the arm.” Baxter’s abuse left his wife with “a traumatic injury” and bruising. A no-contact order prohibiting Baxter from attempting to “contact, harass, follow, communicate with, or knowingly remain within 100 feet of: [his wife]” was issued shortly thereafter, but Baxter “call[ed] and talk[ed]” to his wife “between 1-14 times” after the issuance of the no-contact order. In March, the State charged Baxter with domestic violence under Idaho Code section 18-918(2) and violating the no-contact order under Idaho Code section 18-920. The State proposed a plea agreement, whereby, in exchange for Baxter’s plea of guilty on the domestic violence charge, the State agreed to dismiss several other charges and recommend probation on the condition that a domestic violence evaluation rated Baxter’s likelihood to reoffend at “less than high risk[.]” As an additional contingency, the plea agreement prohibited Baxter from “acquiring a new criminal charge or charges between the date of this offer and sentencing, even if the charge or charges are not yet conviction(s).” Baxter was initially uncertain about whether to accept the State’s proposed plea agreement, and underwent a domestic violence evaluation. When the State reviewed the domestic violence evaluation, it grew concerned over “gross omissions” it felt Baxter had made concerning his drug use and violent conduct during the initial plea negotiations, and changed its terms for the agreement. Baxter entered a guilty plea. Baxter’s presentence investigation report (PSI) took into consideration Baxter’s evaluation, and recommended Baxter be placed on a rider. Baxter moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing the State’s “intervention with [with the physician evaluator] after [Baxter] entered his guilty plea rendered the plea agreement in this case meaningless.” Baxter did not claim innocence. The district court denied the motion, concluding Baxter had not met his burden to show the existence of a “just reason” to withdraw his plea. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Idaho Supreme Court also affirmed, finding Baxter did not show the existence of a just reason to withdraw his guilty plea. View "Idaho v. Baxter" on Justia Law

Torey Adamcik appealed his conviction and sentence for the murder of Cassie Stoddart when he was sixteen years old. The Idaho Supreme Court previously affirmed the conviction and sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Adamcik sought post-conviction relief on several claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel and that his sentence violated the federal and state bars against cruel and unusual punishment. The district court denied all of Adamcik’s claims following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Adamcik contended that the district court erred in denying his requested relief as to three of the ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Furthermore, he argued the district court erred in denying his claim that the imposed sentence of life without the possibility of parole violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, section 6 of the Idaho Constitution in light of recent Unites States Supreme Court opinions. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court on denial of post-conviction relief. View "Adamcik v. Idaho" on Justia Law

The probation officers temporarily detained the visitors while conducting an initial search of the home to secure the remaining occupant. During this initial search, the searching officer observed drug paraphernalia in the garage, and the probation officers further detained the visitors until an investigative officer arrived. The investigative officer performed a pat-search on defendant-appellant Jason Downing, one of the visitors, which led to the discovery of drugs on his person. The officer further questioned him, which led to admissions of drug use that day. Downing sought to suppress all evidence obtained against him that day as derived from both an unlawful seizure and search. The district court denied his motion to suppress the drugs and admissions to the investigative officer. Finding that the district court erred in concluding that the investigative officer’s pat-down of defendant was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, and that defendant’s post-Miranda statements to the officer were not sufficiently attenuated from that pat-down, the Idaho Supreme Court concluded the evidence derived from the search of the residence should have been suppressed. It vacated the judgment of conviction. View "Idaho v. Downing" on Justia Law

This cases involved the statutory termination of parental rights by two adoptive parents after John Doe I (“Child”) was alleged to have sexually assaulted a sibling. John and Jane Doe adopted Child in June 2016. The Does’ adoption came after a previous out-of-state adoption of Child was ended through legal termination of parental rights (a “disrupted adoption”). In September 2016, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (“the Department”) received a report from Jane Doe that Child had sexually assaulted his younger sister (aged nine), another adoptive child of the Does. Child was twelve years old at the time of the incident. Thereafter, the Does worked with the Department and juvenile corrections personnel to determine the best course of action with regard to Child. In October 2016, Child’s juvenile corrections proceeding was expanded to a child protective proceeding, and he was placed in shelter care with the Department. The expansion order specified that “[t]he parents indicate [Child] will never be able to return to their home due to the safety of the other children.” Child was subsequently taken to a residential care facility in Utah (“the Utah facility”) to receive treatment, including mental health services. The treatment program was not permanent placement, but Child’s completion of the program was expected to take up to a year. Shortly after Child was taken to the Utah facility, the magistrate court decreed that Child was to be placed under the protective custody of the Department because it would be contrary to Child’s welfare to remain in the Does’ home. The magistrate court then held a hearing on the case plan submitted by the Department and approved the plan without any objections from the parties. The magistrate court ultimately entered judgments (one for each parent) terminating the Does’ parental rights on three grounds: inability to discharge parental responsibilities, best interest of the Does and Child, and voluntary consent. Child appealed. The Idaho Supreme Court determined the magistrate court record did not support the finding of termination: “[w]ithout compelling substantive evidence, the primary argument for the Does’ unfitness appears to be premised on the same idea that undergirded the Department’s argument as to Child’s best interest: namely, Child cannot return to the Does’ home due to the nature of the sexual assault incident and the presence of the victim and other children in the home.” The Supreme Court reversed the termination of parental rights and the order of guardianship, and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Dept. of Health & Welfare v. Doe I (2017-21)" on Justia Law

Daniel Montgomery appealed his conviction for unlawful discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle. Montgomery argued the district court abused its discretion when it allowed the State to present the testimony of two undisclosed rebuttal witnesses in violation of the requirements of Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(6). Montgomery also alleged that the prosecution engaged in misconduct by arguing during closing that certain witnesses lied, resulting in a violation of Montgomery’s right to a fair trial. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "Idaho v. Montgomery" on Justia Law