Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho, the appellant, Thomas Eugene Creech, appealed the district court's decision to dismiss his successive post-conviction petition as untimely under Idaho Code section 19-2719. Creech argued that his petition was timely due to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Shinn v. Ramirez, which he believed represented a triggering event that restarted the forty-two-day period for filing a petition under Idaho Code section 19-2719. Creech was convicted and sentenced to death for the first-degree murder of a fellow prisoner in 1981. He filed multiple appeals and petitions for post-conviction relief, all of which were denied. His current petition relates to his 1995 death sentence.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss Creech's successive petition as untimely. The court held that the Shinn v. Ramirez judgment did not constitute a triggering event to restart the forty-two-day period for filing a petition under Idaho Code section 19-2719. The court noted that Shinn v. Ramirez interpreted federal law and did not have any bearing on state statutes, such as Idaho Code section 19-2719. Furthermore, the court rejected Creech's argument that the alleged ineffective assistance of his initial post-conviction counsel should excuse his failure to timely raise a trial ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court held that under existing Idaho law, ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel does not excuse a failure to raise issues that should have been reasonably known. Therefore, Creech's petition was untimely under Idaho Code section 19-2719. View "Creech v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the dismissal of a successive post-conviction petition for relief filed by Thomas Eugene Creech, an inmate sentenced to death in 1995 for the murder of fellow inmate David Jensen. The district court had dismissed Creech's petition as untimely under Idaho Code section 19-2719, which requires capital defendants to file any legal or factual challenge to the sentence or conviction that is known or reasonably should be known within forty-two days of the filing of the judgment imposing the death sentence. Creech argued that his death sentence, which was imposed by a judge without the participation of a jury, was unlawful based on the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the U.S. Constitution and the Idaho Constitution. He also claimed that societal norms have evolved to the point where his judge-imposed death sentence is now deemed cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court held that Creech failed to articulate a claim based on information he did not know or could not have reasonably known within the forty-two day period, thus upholding the district court's dismissal of his petition as untimely. View "Creech v. State" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho, defendant William Parsons was convicted on three felony counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen and one misdemeanor count of disseminating harmful material to a minor. The prosecution's case was largely based on video evidence from two interviews with the minor victim, conducted by a medical social worker at a children's evaluation service that specializes in abuse cases. The victim did not testify at the trial. On appeal, Parsons argued that the admission of the video evidence violated his Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause, as he was not given an opportunity to confront his accuser.The court agreed with Parsons, concluding that the videos were submitted to the jury in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The court found that the primary purpose of the victim's interviews was to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution, rather than to provide medical care. Therefore, the statements in the interviews were testimonial in nature. Since the defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the victim, the court held that it was error to admit the videos at trial. The court vacated the conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision. View "State v. Parsons" on Justia Law

The Idaho Supreme Court upheld a conviction of a man named Troy Dale Green for various offenses, including trafficking in methamphetamine and unlawful possession of a firearm. Green appealed his conviction, arguing that the testimony of a detective who had not personally performed the extraction of data from his cellphone violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The court disagreed, ruling that the detective's testimony did not violate Green's rights because the detective had sufficient knowledge and experience to analyze the extracted data and independently conclude that the data came from Green's phone. The court also rejected Green's argument that the text messages from his phone were not properly authenticated under Idaho's rules of evidence. The court found that the detective's testimony, along with that of two other detectives, sufficiently authenticated the text messages. The court affirmed Green's conviction. View "State v. Green" on Justia Law

Two online fundraising companies, Snap! Mobile, Inc. ("Snap") and Vertical Raise, LLC ("Vertical Raise"), were involved in a dispute. Snap accused Vertical Raise and its CEO, Paul Landers, of poaching its sales representatives and customers, which violated non-compete and confidentiality provisions in the former sales representatives’ employment agreements with Snap. The trial court granted Snap a preliminary injunction to prevent further violations and partially ruled in Snap's favor on some claims. A jury trial on damages resulted in an award of $1,000,000 to Snap. However, the trial court increased the award to $2,310,021. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the trial court's award of discretionary costs for expert witness fees but reversed the trial court’s order granting an additur or new trial. The Supreme Court ordered the trial court to enter a judgment consistent with the original jury award. The Supreme Court also reversed the trial court’s decision granting Snap a permanent injunction. In a separate contempt proceeding, the Supreme Court affirmed the contempt court's decision to dismiss contempt charges against Vertical Raise and Paul Croghan, a former Snap employee. The contempt court had determined the preliminary injunction was vague, overbroad, and unenforceable. View "Snap! Mobile v. Vertical Raise" on Justia Law

This case arises from a water rights dispute in Idaho. The McConnells sought to transfer their water rights to a new point of diversion on Lee Creek. Their upstream neighbor, Whittaker, protested the application, arguing that the new diversion would infringe upon his water rights. The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) approved the transfer, finding that it would not injure Whittaker's water rights. The IDWR used the historic confluence of two creeks to make this determination, asserting that if the confluence was above the McConnells’ diversion point, then Whittaker’s upstream water right was already subject to the McConnells’ senior water rights and the transfer wouldn't injure Whittaker's rights.On review, the district court disagreed with IDWR’s use of the historic confluence, instead favoring the modern confluence which was downstream of the McConnells' diversion point. This meant that the transfer would injure Whittaker's water rights.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reversed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the West Springs Ditch, which altered the natural flow of the creek and created the modern confluence, was an unauthorized diversion of water. Therefore, the historic confluence should be used in the injury analysis, and the approval of the McConnells’ transfer application would not injure Whittaker’s water rights. The case was remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision. View "Whittaker v. Idaho Department of Water Resources" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the judgment of the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Washington County, in a medical malpractice action brought by Vivian Nipper against Dr. Lore Wootton, M.D., Dr. Robert Mairs, D.O., and the Weiser Memorial Hospital District. Nipper alleged that she was injured during the delivery of her child via a cesarean section when Dr. Wootton negligently cut her bladder, causing significant damage. Dr. Mairs was called to assist in repairing the injury, but Nipper alleged his efforts also fell below the standard of care.After a significant period of discovery, both Dr. Wootton and Dr. Mairs moved for summary judgment on the claims asserted against them. In response to each motion, Nipper moved for Rule 56(d) relief, requesting additional time to respond. The district court denied both requests for Rule 56(d) relief and granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Wootton and Dr. Mairs.The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denials of Rule 56(d) relief and subsequent grants of summary judgment. The Court found that Nipper failed to provide specific reasons why she could not present essential facts to oppose the summary judgment motion within the allotted timeframes. Further, the Court concluded that Nipper failed to set forth a satisfactory explanation for why, after two years, such essential evidence was not sought earlier. View "Nipper V. Wootton" on Justia Law

In 2021, Gilberto Flores Rodriguez was found guilty of first-degree murder by a Cassia County jury for the 1995 killing of a 14-year-old girl. After the verdict, Rodriguez filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a new trial after information came to light suggesting that a juror may have slept through parts of the trial. Rodriguez's argument was based on the belief that the juror's alleged inattentiveness amounted to juror misconduct and could have prejudiced the defendant. The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho held that Rodriguez failed to meet his burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that juror misconduct occurred. The court noted that there was much uncertainty over whether the juror was actually asleep during any stage of the trial. The court further held that even if it were to address the question of prejudice, Rodriguez's motion would still lack evidence. The court concluded that Rodriguez failed to establish the identity and duration of the specific testimony, argument, or instructions the juror missed. As a result, the court affirmed the order of the district court denying Rodriguez’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

In this case, the Idaho State Athletic Commission and the Idaho Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses sought a declaratory ruling that provisions of the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requiring legislative approval of pending administrative fee rules violated the Idaho Constitution. They also sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the Office of the Administrative Rules Coordinator to publish the Athletic Commission’s 2022 administrative rules in the Idaho Administrative Code. The Idaho Supreme Court held that it had jurisdiction to consider the case, but dismissed the petition for a declaration of unconstitutionality and denied the petition for a Writ of Mandamus. The court concluded that the APA requirement for legislative approval of pending administrative rules did not violate the Idaho Constitution's separation of powers, enactment, presentment, or administrative rules provisions. In reaching this conclusion, the court emphasized that administrative rulemaking authority was a legislative delegation, not a constitutional power, and that the legislature was free to modify the process by which administrative rules were enacted. View "Idaho State Athletic Commission v. Office of the Administrative Rules Coordinator" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho held that the Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) had the authority under Idaho Code section 42-237a.g. to initiate administrative proceedings to curtail the withdrawal of water from any well during any period where water to fill a water right in said well was not available. The proceedings stemmed from a district court decision involving the adjudication of water rights in the Wood River Valley during an unprecedented drought in 2021. The Director of the IDWR initiated an administrative proceeding to determine whether water was available to fill junior groundwater rights in the aquifer beneath the Bellevue Triangle. After a six-day hearing, the Director issued a Final Order that found water was unavailable to fill the junior rights because pumping from the aquifer was affecting the use of senior surface water rights. The South Valley Ground Water District and Galena Ground Water District challenged the Director's authority to initiate proceedings under Idaho Code section 42-237a.g., arguing that the Director did not comply with the prior appropriation doctrine because the Director had not formally designated an area of common groundwater supply, or determined "material injury" had been sustained by senior surface water rights holders. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, ruling that the Director had the authority to initiate administrative proceedings under Idaho Code section 42-237a.g. and that the Director did not violate the prior appropriation doctrine. It held that the Director had the discretion to limit or prohibit the withdrawal of groundwater from any well during any period when water was not available to fill a water right in said well, and was not required to establish an area of common groundwater supply before he is allowed to curtail groundwater pumping. The Court also held that the Director's decision to reject the proposed mitigation plan without a hearing was not properly before the Court on appeal. View "South Valley Ground Water v. Idaho Dept of Water Resources" on Justia Law