Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2004, a jury found Azad Haji Abdullah guilty of first-degree murder, first-degree arson, three counts of attempted first-degree murder, and felony injury to a child. He was sentenced to death for the murder. Abdullah filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was dismissed by the district court in 2011. Abdullah then filed a consolidated appeal that included a direct appeal from his convictions and sentences and an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Idaho Supreme Court, in Idaho v. Abdullah, 348 P.3d 1 (2015), affirmed the convictions, sentences, and denial of post-conviction relief. In 2013—after the district court issued its order dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief, but prior to the Supreme Court’s issuance of Abdullah in 2015—Abdullah filed a successive petition for post-conviction relief. The Successive Petition was amended in 2016 and 2017. Abdullah also filed a pro se supplement to the successive petition that was incorporated with the successive petition. The successive petition and supplement included substantive claims, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court determined that Abdullah was not entitled to post-conviction relief and summarily dismissed his successive petition and Supplement. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "Abdullah v. Idaho" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs were indigent defendants represented in criminal actions by attorneys provided through Idaho’s public defense system. They alleged that numerous inadequacies in Idaho’s public defense system, as administered by the State and the Idaho Public Defense Commission (“PDC” or together “Respondents”), violated the rights of the named plaintiffs, as well as those of similarly situated criminal defendants across Idaho, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Idaho Constitution. In 2019, the district court denied cross motions for summary judgment, citing a lack of precedent as to the controlling legal standard to be applied, and requested this appeal. The Idaho Supreme Court granted the district court’s request for permissive appeal to determine the standard of review. The central issue presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on how to properly evaluate the deficiencies in Idaho’s public defense systems alleged by Appellants. In sum, Appellants insisted that a broader view was sufficient, while Respondents demanded the district court examine this issue closely. The Supreme Court held that both views were necessary: "a close up view, which allows for greater specificity, must be applied to the individual claims of at least one of the named plaintiffs whose allegations formed the basis of standing; however, a more distant view, which allows for greater overall perspective, is permissible for the examination of the systemic constitutional shortcomings alleged by Appellants." View "Tucker v. Idaho" on Justia Law

While responding to a call regarding an ongoing robbery at a mobile home park in Grangeville, Idaho, officers with the Grangeville Police Department interacted with defendant-appellant William Clark. Upon learning that Clark had an outstanding warrant for his arrest in Nez Perce County, Idaho, the officers attempted to arrest him. Clark fled, first entering a nearby home where the owner of the home implored him to leave. After exiting the first home, Clark entered the home next door, successfully evading the officers for approximately ten minutes. The officers eventually located Clark, hiding underneath a bed in the second home, where he was arrested. After a bench trial, the district court found Clark guilty on both counts of felony unlawful entry, concluding that the officers’ pursuit to execute the arrest warrant constituted “fresh pursuit” as defined in Idaho Code section 19-705. Clark appealed, arguing that pursuit to execute an outstanding warrant did not fall under either the common law or statutory definition of “fresh pursuit.” As a result, Clark argued the State failed to present sufficient evidence of the pursuit element for felony unlawful entry. Finding that "fresh pursuit," as defined in section 19-705 included pursuit to execute an arrest warrant, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed Clark's conviction. View "Idaho v. Clark" on Justia Law

Defendant Melonie Smith appealed her conviction for first degree murder and destruction, alteration, or concealment of evidence. On appeal, Smith claimed the district court: (1) erred when it denied her motion to suppress; (2) abused its discretion when it admitted certain testimony over her objection; and (3) committed fundamental error by (a) admitting a video and (b) not striking the prosecutor’s comments in closing arguments. Smith further argued she was deprived of her right to a fair trial due to the accumulation of errors. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed her convictions. View "Idaho v. Smith" on Justia Law

Fifteen-year-old Lucas Orozco was charged with robbery and burglary, both felonies, for allegedly robbing a convenience store. After a magistrate court determined there was probable cause to charge Orozco with the felonies, it waived juvenile jurisdiction and bound him over to district court as an adult pursuant to Idaho Code section 20-509. Orozco objected to this automatic waiver, filing a motion with the district court challenging the constitutionality of section 20-509. The district court denied the motion, relying on precedent from the Idaho Court of Appeals, which previously upheld the constitutionality of section 20-509. Orozco appealed, arguing that the automatic waiver denied him procedural due process protections afforded to him by the U.S. Constitution. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Idaho v. Orozco" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court was asked to clarify the meaning and extent of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel. Appellant Alfredo Alvarado argued his rights were violated because his public defender had previously represented a witness who was adverse to him on a felony charge. After disclosing the conflict, Alvarado’s attorney agreed that he and the public defender’s office would decline any future representation of the witness. However, Alvarado argued that counsel continued to have an actual conflict of interest because his ongoing ethical duties to the witness and former client prevented him from effectively cross- examining the witness. Alvarado contended this resulted in a structural defect in the trial, which necessitated overturning his convictions. In the alternative, Alvarado argued his unified aggregate sentence of twenty years to life for attempted strangulation and domestic abuse was excessive. After review, the Supreme Court determined Alvarado failed to show his counsel's representation constituted a fundamental error. He neither demonstrated an error affected the outcome of the trial, nor shown that a structural error denied him the right to counsel during a critical stage of the proceeding. Therefore, the Court ruled Alvarado was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel. The Court also held the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Alvarado to a twenty-year to life aggregate sentence on his two felony convictions. View "Idaho v. Alvarado" on Justia Law

Defendant Max Gorringe appeaeled a district court’s order amending of a no contact order. A no contact order was originally entered against Gorringe after he was initially charged with attempted strangulation in 2011. Upon acceptance of Gorringe’s guilty plea to that charge in 2012, the district court rescinded the existing no contact order and in its place included no contact provisions in the Judgment and Commitment. In 2018, Gorringe was charged with a misdemeanor for allegedly violating the no contact provisions contained in the original Judgment and Commitment. Gorringe sought clarification of the existing provisions originally entered the judgment, then moved to modify the no contact provisions. The parties stipulated to an amendment of the order in exchange for the dismissal of Gorringe’s misdemeanor charge. Although the district court expressed reservations regarding its jurisdiction to amend the no contact provisions that had been incorporated into the prior Judgment and Commitment, the district court nonetheless amended the 2012 no contact order based on the parties’ stipulation and the State’s assurance that the victim did not object to the amendment. Gorringe appealed the district court’s order amending the no contact provisions, asserting that the no contact provisions included in the 2012 Judgment and Commitment were invalid. Gorringe also claimed the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to amend the order in 2018. The Idaho Supreme Court concluded the no contact provision in the district court's 2012 Judgment was unenforceable; the court lacked jurisdiction to amend the 2012 no contact order. The district court order amending the no contact order was thus reversed, and the provisions in the 2012 sentencing order were void. View "Idaho v. Gorringe" on Justia Law

The State charged Carli Campbell as an accessory to a felony under Idaho Code section 18-205(1) for withholding or concealing information from police officers about an aggravated battery and burglary that occurred in her home in December 2017. After the evidentiary phase of the trial was completed, Campbell requested the district court instruct the jury that the State was required to prove that the alleged assailant, Michael Cross, committed the aggravated battery or burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. The State opposed this request and the district court agreed, concluding that while the State was required to prove Campbell had knowledge of the conduct that constituted an aggravated battery or a burglary, it was not was required to prove Cross committed the aggravated battery or burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Campbell guilty. Campbell now appeals her conviction to this Court. Finding no reversible error in the district court's decision, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. View "Idaho v. Campbell" on Justia Law

In 1985, Gerald Pizzuto Jr. murdered Berta and Delbert Herndon. Pizzuto was convicted of two counts of murder in the first degree, two counts of felony murder, one count of robbery, and one count of grand theft. He was sentenced to death for the murders. Between 1986 and 2003, Pizzuto filed five petitions for post-conviction relief. His fifth petition for post-conviction relief was predicated on the holding in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the execution of an intellectually disabled person constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In his fifth petition, Pizzuto asserted that his death sentence should be “reversed and vacated” because he was intellectually disabled. The district court summarily dismissed Pizzuto’s petition. The Idaho Supreme Court held that the district court did not err when it dismissed Pizzuto’s fifth petition for post-conviction relief on the basis that Pizzuto had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact supporting his claim that he was intellectually disabled at the time of the murders and prior to his eighteenth birthday. Pizzuto pursued this same claim in a federal habeas corpus action. In 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho denied Pizzuto’s successive petition for writ of habeas corpus after holding a four-day evidentiary hearing in 2010. Although it affirmed the federal district court’s decision denying Pizzuto’s successive petition for writ of habeas corpus, the Ninth Circuit stated in dicta that its decision does not preclude Idaho courts from reconsidering whether Pizzuto was intellectually disabled at the time of the murders. Based on this dicta, Pizzuto filed a motion with the district court to alter or amend the judgment dismissing his fifth petition for post-conviction relief in accordance with Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). The district court denied Pizzuto’s Motion in early 2020. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pizzuto’s Motion, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision. View "Pizzuto v. Idaho" on Justia Law

Daniel Chernobieff appealed a district court’s decision on intermediate appeal to uphold a magistrate court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Chernobieff was convicted of a misdemeanor for driving under the influence with an excessive blood alcohol content in June 2014. After the Idaho Supreme Court upheld his conviction on direct appeal, Chernobieff filed a petition for post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. He alleged that his defense counsel’s decision to object to testimony at a suppression hearing suggesting that the on-call magistrate could not be reached to obtain a warrant because his cell phone ringer was off was unreasonable and prejudicial. He argued that the objection to the ringer testimony prevented him from arguing at trial that the State did not have good cause for the on-call magistrate's unavailability. The magistrate court granted the State's motion for summary dismissal, reasoning the objection was an unreviewable strategic decision and would not have changed the outcome of the case. The district court, sitting in an appellate capacity, affirmed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court also affirmed. View "Chernobieff v. Idaho" on Justia Law