Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner-Appellant Zane Jack Fields was incarcerated for the 1988 first degree murder of Mary Katherine Vanderford. The district court dismissed his petition for post-conviction relief in 2010, the fifth successive petition for post-conviction relief he filed. In the latest petition, Petitioner argued that the act of destroying an orange camouflage coat (introduced into evidence as a defense exhibit and used by eyewitnesses to identify him) was new evidence that established his innocence. The State moved to dismiss on grounds that Petitioner's newly discovered evidence claims were time-barred by statute, and the district court granted the motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court was correct in finding Petitioner's petition was untimely filed, and affirmed. View "Fields v. Idaho" on Justia Law

This case arose from a district court's review on appeal of a magistrate court's decision regarding the civil forfeiture of a motorcycle and other items that belong to Christopher Rubey. In 2009, Rubey was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. Subsequently, the Ada County Prosecutor's Office (State) brought an action under I.C. 37-2744 for civil forfeiture of the motorcycle and related items used in the alleged crime. The magistrate court granted summary judgment to the State, and the district court reversed and remanded that decision. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the district court erred in its decision and that the legislative intent behind I.C. 37-2744(a)(4) supports civil forfeiture for either the transportation or trafficking of drugs. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed and affirmed the district court's decision. View "Ada Co Prosecuting Atty v. 2007 Legendary Motorcycle" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Robert Barton, Jr. was found guilty by jury of solicitation of perjury. Defendant, the victim of aggravated battery, was charged with solicitation and conspiracy to commit perjury in connection to his testimony in the battery case. On appeal, Defendant argued that the jury should have been instructed on his defense of entrapment, and that such a defense was consistent with his plea of innocence. The State disagreed, arguing that no reasonable view of the evidence would support an instruction for entrapment and that such a defense is incompatible with his plea of innocence. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the district court did not err when it refused to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of entrapment, and affirmed the decision. View "Idaho v. Barton, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Randall Bottum appealed a district court order which held that a 2009 amendment to the sex offender registration law applied to him. Prior to the amendment, Petitioner could have petitioned the court to be exempted, but the amendment foreclosed that opportunity. Upon review of the district court order, the Supreme Court found that the 2009 amendment applied to Petitioner and affirmed the district court order. View "Bottum v. Idaho State Police" on Justia Law

In 2006, Woodrow John Grant pleaded guilty to aggravated battery; he successfully completed a period of retained jurisdiction and was placed on probation. In 2009, Grant was charged with possession of methamphetamine, domestic battery, aggravated assault, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Grant's appointed counsel moved to withdraw, stating that Grant had reneged on an agreed-upon plea bargain and that communications between them had broken down. The district court denied the motion. Later, Grant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and domestic battery, and admitted to violating the terms of his probation. The district court considered a letter and live testimony from the victim of Grant's domestic battery, in which the victim expressed her opinions on Grant's crime, character, and the sentence that would be proper for him. Thereafter, the district court sentenced Grant to five years fixed and five years indeterminate for domestic battery, to be served concurrently with a sentence of two years fixed and three years indeterminate for possession of methamphetamine. The district court revoked Grant's probation and executed his previously suspended sentence of four years fixed and six years indeterminate. The two new sentences were to be served consecutively to the reinstated 2006 sentence. Grant requested leniency in three I.C.R. 35 motions, which the district court denied. Grant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by refusing to allow his counsel to withdraw, by considering the victim's impact statements in their entirety, and by refusing his requests for leniency. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court in all respects. View "Idaho v. Grant" on Justia Law

Michelle Anderson appealed the district court's denial of her motion to dismiss kidnapping charges brought against her for keeping the child she had with Ricky Anderson away. Michelle was obligated to deliver the child to Ricky under a parenting plan issued by a Montana court, but never completed the exchange. In her motion to dismiss, Michelle argued that Ricky is not a custodial parent under I.C. 18-4501 and therefore Michelle could not have committed kidnapping. The district court denied the motion, and the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal that decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Ricky was a custodial parent for the purposes of IC 18-4501(2), and that Michelle could be charged with kidnapping based on Ricky's visitation rights that granted him lawful care and control of the child. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Idaho v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The issue in this case came from an appeal of a decision of the Industrial Commission which found that claimant Joseph Henry failed to prove that the heart attack he suffered while at work was an industrial accident because his cardiologist could not determine whether the plaque rupture that caused the heart attack was triggered by events occurring before or after the claimant arrived at work. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the Commission’s findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and affirmed its order denying compensation. View "Henry v. Dept of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the trial court's decision to admit expert testimony regarding domestic violence and testimony of an excited utterance following his felony convictions of domestic violence and attempted strangulation. In addition, defendant challenged the deputy prosecutor's actions in soliciting testimony of the defendant's post-custody silence when accused of the crimes and the verdict finding defendant was a persistent violator. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Idaho v. Parton" on Justia Law

This case arose from a traffic stop and subsequent arrest of Defendant Phillip James Morgan. A Boise City police officer observed Morgan driving in a way that caused the officer to believe Defendant was trying to avoid him. The officer stopped Defendant after observing that Defendant's vehicle did not have a front license plate. Defendant was subsequently arrested for DUI. He filed a motion to suppress all evidence garnered from the traffic stop, arguing the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop. The district court concluded that although Defendant may not have actually violated traffic laws, the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion to believe that he had done so. Defendant's motion to suppress was denied, and he was convicted of felony DUI after a jury trial. Defendant appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding the officer lacked the reasonable, articulable suspicion necessary to justify the traffic stop. The judgment of conviction was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Idaho v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Defendant Daniel Straub pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter, and as part of his plea, agreed to pay restitution to his victims. After a hearing, the district court determined that Defendant owed $554,506.67 to the decedent's family, primarily for future medical insurance premiums and for five years of lost wages. Defendant appealed the restitution order, arguing that the court unreasonably or illegally interpreted the restitution statutes. Finding that Defendant did not waive his right to appeal the district court's order in his plea agreement, and that the district court abused its discretion in ordering Defendant to pay restitution for the victim's future lost wages, the Supreme Court reversed the order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Idaho v. Straub" on Justia Law