Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case arose out of the claims of several men who joined Boy Scout troops when they were children and were allegedly sexually abused by their scout leaders. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS Church) sponsored some of the troops at issue in this case. In 2013, Does I–IV filed a complaint (later amended) at the federal district court against Boy Scouts of America and the LDS Church (collectively, Respondents), alleging constructive fraud. The complaint alleged that Respondents knew that boys were in danger of being sexually abused by adult volunteers and that Respondents failed to disclose that danger. The complaint further alleged that Respondents not only remained silent about the dangers of pedophilic scoutmasters, but also affirmatively represented to the boys that each scout leader was a “great guy,” a “wonderful man,” or a “friend to whom you can always turn for advice.” Respondents subsequently moved to certify questions to the Idaho Supreme Court, challenging the constructive fraud claims on several grounds. The United States District Court certified two narrow questions to the Idaho Court regarding the statute of limitations that applied to a constructive fraud claim where the plaintiff alleged a breach of duty resulted in sexual abuse, and when a claim for constructive fraud related to childhood sex abuse accrued. The Idaho Supreme Court found that: (1) Idaho Code section 5-218(4)'s statute of limitations applied to constructive fraud cases; and (2) the "discovery rule" applied to constructive fraud claims for purposes of determining when the cause of action accrued. View "DOE(s) v. Boy Scouts of America" on Justia Law

Jesse Riendeau was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol by a Coeur d’Alene police officer. The officer transported him to the jail, where the officer asked that Riendeau submit to a breath test for alcohol concentration. He did, and the two tests showed an alcohol concentration in excess of the statutory limit. Riendeau was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol. Riendeau filed a motion to suppress the results of the breath test on the ground that the breath test constituted a search and that his consent to that search was obtained unconstitutionally by the threat of a civil penalty of $250 and a one-year suspension of his driving privileges and by the false statement that he was required by law to submit to the breath test. On May 6, 2013, he filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude from evidence the result of the breath test because the State Police’s change of the word “must” to “should” in its standard operating procedures resulted in there being no standards to ensure the reliability of the test results. After an evidentiary hearing, briefing, and argument, the magistrate court denied both motions. Riendeau then pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol pursuant to a conditional plea agreement which provided that he would enter a conditional plea of guilty, that he could appeal the orders denying his motions, and that if he prevailed on appeal he could withdraw his guilty plea. The court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Riendeau. He then appealed to the district court, and it affirmed the magistrate court. He then appealed to the Supreme Court. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Idaho v. Riendeau" on Justia Law

Andrew Garcia admitted to committing an offense that would have been a misdemeanor if he were an adult. He was ordered to pay court costs of $20.00. After Garcia admitted to committing another offense and a probation violation, he was ordered to pay court costs, probation fees, and community service fees. On May 10, 2010, Garcia admitted to committing another offense and was once again ordered to pay court costs and probation supervision fees. After he failed to make those payments, the State filed a motion for contempt. The magistrate court dismissed the motion, concluding that it did not have jurisdiction because Garcia was then over twenty-one and juvenile court jurisdiction was terminated by operation of Idaho Code section 20-507. The State appealed and the district court affirmed the magistrate court’s order. The State appealed the decision of the district court. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court possessed the inherent power to adjudicate Garcia's alleged contempt, and incorrectly dismissed the State's motion for contempt for lack of jurisdiction. The district court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Idaho v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Jessica and Eric Kawamura married in Las Vegas. They concealed their marriage from their families for one year before having a “marriage” ceremony, which was attended by family members. During the course of their marriage, Jessica and Eric lived in three homes. The magistrate court presiding over the parties' divorce concluded that the residence located in Pocatello was Eric’s separate property. The district court reversed, holding that the magistrate court improperly considered parol evidence to reach its conclusion. Upon review of the parties' arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court to the extent that it reversed the magistrate court’s determination of the character of the property. "The Gwen [Pocatello] home was purchased during the course of the marriage. Thus, it was presumptively community property. The community was liable to repay the loan from Eric’s parents. The community was the source of the funds used to make payment on the loan. Eric and Jessica were named as grantees in the deed to the Gwen Home, a fact that they acknowledged at the time of its acquisition by their initials on the deed. The only evidence favoring Eric’s claim that the Gwen Home was Eric’s separate property is the fact that his separate property was the source of the down payment on the home. This single fact is insufficient to overcome the presumption that the Gwen Home was community property." View "Kawamura v. Kawamura" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Shannon McKean (a/k/ "McKeam) appealed after she was convicted by jury on five counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and two counts of aiding and abetting the delivery of a controlled substance. McKean argued the district court erred by determining that a substance known as "AM-2201" was a controlled substance under the version of Idaho Code section 37-2705(d)(30) then in effect. Furthermore, McKean argued that the district court erred by excluding laboratory reports relating to the products McKean was charged with possessing and delivering. These reports stated that test samples of the products did not show the presence of illegal synthetic cannabinoids. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Idaho v. McKean" on Justia Law

This appeal from Custer County relates to proposed repairs and improvements to the City of Challis’ (the City) water distribution system. In 2013, the City initiated a judicial confirmation proceeding seeking approval to incur $3.2 million in debt without a public vote. The Consent of the Governed Caucus (the Caucus) challenged the constitutionality of the City’s request based upon Article VIII, section 3 of the Idaho Constitution. The district court granted the City’s request and the Caucus appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed. The Court found that the district court erred in failing to apply the legal standard for determining what constituted a "necessary" expense under the Idaho Constitution (Article III), articulated in recent case law. As such, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in finding the project "necessary" under the tests articulated by case law. The Court therefore reversed the district court's judgment in Challis' favor, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "City of Challis v. Consent of the Governed Caucus" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a failed development project undertaken by BRN Development, Inc. in Coeur d’Alene. The project was for the development of a high-end 325-unit residential and golf course community on the west side of Lake Coeur d'Alene known as "Black Rock North." American Bank was the lender for this project. The Bank ultimately brought a foreclosure action against BRN. BRN brought a cross-claim against Taylor Engineering, Inc., alleging negligence for its role in the development. Taylor recorded a lien against the development. BRN defaulted on the loan, and the Bank named BRN, Taylor, and any other entity claiming an interest in the development. Taylor made a demand on BRN for payment for services rendered. The demand stated that Taylor would "complete the necessary documents" and request the necessary signatures from the local government entities involved in the final PUD approval. Taylor advised BRN that "if the final subdivision approval is not completed and recorded by May 29, 2009, the PUD and preliminary plat approval will expire, the PUD and plat will not vest in the recorded ownership to the real property involved, and the property will revert to its prior zoning and density." This statement was erroneous; it was undisputed that the final plat did not need to be recorded by May 29 in order to vest the PUD. In BRN's cross-claim against Taylor, it alleged professional negligence, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and failure to disclose based on the erroneous statement Taylor made in its demand letter. The district court separated the claims between Taylor and BRN from the remainder of the American Bank litigation and ultimately held that Taylor was not liable to BRN. BRN appealed. The Supreme Court found no reversible error with the district court's judgment that BRN failed to meet its burden of proving its claims against Taylor, and affirmed that court's judgment. View "American Bank v. BRN Dev." on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Felicity Haynes was arrested by a state trooper for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Defendant appealed a district court order affirming the orders of the magistrate court, arguing the magistrate court erred in: (1) granting a continuance to the State due to the unavailability of a witness; (2) refusing to appoint a separate judge to hear a request for funds for the defense; (3) denying a motion in limine to exclude the results of a breath test on the ground that procedures for administering the test had not been properly adopted by the Idaho State Police; and (4) finding defendant’s consent to the breath test was invalid because it was obtained by the threat of a monetary penalty and loss of her driver’s license for one year. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the order. View "Idaho v. Haynes" on Justia Law

Defendant Bryann Lemmons was convicted by jury on two counts of trafficking in methamphetamine by delivering methamphetamine and two counts of trafficking in methamphetamine by conspiring to deliver methamphetamine. The charges arose from two instances in which Defendant, with the assistance of a co-conspirator, agreed to, and then delivered methamphetamine to a confidential informant. The actual weight of the methamphetamine delivered was less than 28 grams. However, the confidential informant testified that in each transaction Defendant represented that she was delivering an ounce of methamphetamine. In addition, the confidential informant testified that Defendant, through the co-conspirator, had agreed to sell one and one-half ounces of methamphetamine, but when the transaction occurred he was told that Defendant could only obtain one ounce and would provide the half ounce later. Before Defendant was sentenced, she moved for a judgment of acquittal on the counts relating to trafficking on the ground that there was insufficient evidence admitted during the trial to show that one ounce equaled 28 grams or more. After briefing and argument, the district court granted a new trial with respect to the jury questions of whether the person who sold or delivered the methamphetamine represented that it weighed 28 grams or more and with respect to the two charges of trafficking by conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine. The State then filed a notice of appeal. The following day, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, asking for judgments of acquittal rather than a new trial. After briefing and argument, the district court granted judgments of acquittal as to the charges of trafficking by conspiring to deliver methamphetamine and as to the issue of whether the person who sold or delivered the methamphetamine had represented that it weighed 28 grams or more. Defendant then filed a notice of cross-appeal. The Supreme Court, after review, concluded the district court's order granting the motion for reconsideration was void. Furthermore, the Court found that testimony that Defendant represented that the weight of the drug was one ounce was, as a matter of law, testimony that Defendant represented the weight was more than 28 grams (an ounce equals slightly more than 28 grams). "A witness need not testify in the wording of a criminal statute in order to prove a violation of that statute as long as the witness’s testimony shows a violation of the statute. It is the substance of the testimony, not the particular words used, that is material." The Court found the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support conviction on trafficking. The Court reversed the grant of a new trial and remanded this case for sentencing on all trafficking charges. View "Idaho v. Lemmons" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Joseph Herrera appealed his conviction of second-degree murder. At the time of the shooting, Herrera and his girlfriend Stefanie Cormack had been dating for three to four months and were living together in Herrera’s parents’ house. For some time leading up to the shooting, Herrera was in possession of two of his father’s handguns. On December 24, 2011, Herrera was out late and arrived home before dawn on Christmas morning, having used both methamphetamine and marijuana that morning. Herrera testified that when he arrived home he went to sleep for a few hours and woke up at roughly 10:00 a.m. When Herrera and Stefanie woke up Christmas morning, they began arguing about Facebook messages Stefanie had exchanged with other men and the fact that Herrera did not want to go to Stefanie’s mother’s house for Christmas. Herrera testified the gun that killed Stefanie was in the drawer of a nightstand next to his bed the morning of the shooting. He testified that during the course of their argument, Stefanie was packing her things to go to her mother’s house and that he was handling the gun. Herrera claimed that Stefanie was packing to go to her mother’s house only to celebrate Christmas, but the State’s theory was that she was packing to leave Herrera and end the relationship. He gave varying accounts of what exactly caused the gun to discharge. Although Herrera testified he did not remember the gun coming into contact with Stefanie’s forehead, testimony from the emergency room physician who first examined Stefanie and from the county medical examiner strongly evidenced that the gun was pressed against Stefanie’s forehead when it fired. By all accounts, Herrera was extremely upset after the fatal shot was fired. The jury was instructed on second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter. Herrera was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with twenty-two years fixed. He timely appealed. Herrera argues (1) there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of malice, and (2) improper testimony from a number of witnesses unfairly prejudiced his case. Upon review of the trial court record, taking Herrera's second argument first, the Supreme Court concluded that indeed certain testimony offered at trial suggesting he was abusive was highly prejudicial in light of the other evidence offered. "Even more concerning is the rather transparent violation of the limitations imposed by the district court on the testimony of [certain] witnesses." As such, the Court vacated the judgment of conviction and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Idaho v. Herrera" on Justia Law