Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case arose from a petition asserting the Idaho Commission for Reapportionment (“the Commission”) violated Idaho Code section 72-1506 when it adopted Plan C03, the congressional reapportionment plan, following the 2020 federal census. Petitioner Christopher Pentico argued the Commission failed to timely submit its plan and final report, and that Plan C03 violated Idaho Code section 72-1506 by splitting local precinct boundary lines. Pentico requested the Idaho Supreme Court issue a writ of prohibition to restrain the Secretary of State from transmitting a copy of the Commission’s Final Report and Plan C03 to the President Pro Tempore of the Idaho Senate and the Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives. The Supreme Court declined, finding the Commission filed its Final Report within the ninety-day deadline, and pursuant to Idaho Code section 72-1506(7), a commission need not retain local precinct boundary lines with respect to its congressional plan if it determines it cannot complete its duties for a legislative district while retaining precincts. View "Pentico v. Idaho Commission for Reapportionment" on Justia Law

Tyler Clapp appealed his conviction for driving under the influence. After stopping Clapp for “spinning cookies” in a parking lot, police became suspicious that Clapp was intoxicated. Clapp refused to submit to any field sobriety tests. Police then obtained a warrant for a blood draw, which showed that Clapp’s blood alcohol content (“BAC”) was 0.152 several hours after initially detaining him. At trial, the State sought to introduce the results of the blood draw. Over Clapp’s objection, the district court allowed the nurse who conducted the blood draw to testify telephonically to his qualifications in order to lay sufficient foundation to admit the results of the blood draw. The results of the blood draw were ultimately admitted, and the jury convicted Clapp of driving under the influence. Clapp appealed. The Idaho Supreme Court found the telephonic testimony violated Clapp’s right to confrontation, "'the face-to-face confrontation requirement is not absolute does not, of course, mean that it may be easily dispensed with. ... [A] defendant’s right to confront accusatory witnesses may be satisfied absent a physical, face-to-face confrontation at trial only where denial of such confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy and only where the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured.' Both requirements must be met." Further, the Supreme Court determined the State failed to meet its burden establishing harmless error. The conviction was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Idaho v. Clapp" on Justia Law

This appeal consisted of two consolidated cases concerning drug-related charges. Casey Casper appealed his sentence, arguing it was excessive in light of mitigating factors he claimed the district court failed to properly consider. Casper also challenged certain restitution costs awarded to the State, claiming that they were unlawful under a plain interpretation of Idaho Code section 37- 2732(k). After review, the Idaho Supreme Court determined the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a ten-year sentence with three years fixed. The Supreme Court affirmed Casper's conviction and the resulting sentence and order of restitution. View "Idaho v. Casper" on Justia Law

Gregory Wade Towner, Sr., appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine. The arresting officer found the contraband on Towner’s person during a warrantless search. Towner moved to suppress, arguing that the officer’s conduct violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The district court denied Towner’s motion after concluding that the officer’s seizure and subsequent search were a reasonable exercise of the officer’s community caretaking function. Towner appealed and the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed. The Idaho Supreme Court granted Towner’s petition for review, and reversed, finding the trial court erred in concluding the officer's act of taking Towner into protective custody was within the officer’s authority under the community caretaker exception to the Fourth Amendment without considering the requirements of Idaho Code section 66-326(1). The case was remanded with instructions for the trial court to enter findings of fact related to whether the State proved that Towner was “gravely disabled” or an “imminent danger” to himself or others because of his mental illness under Idaho Code section 66-326(1), before he was taken into protective custody. View "Idaho v. Towner" on Justia Law

Mother and Father married in 2016. In May 2020, Child was born in Utah County, Utah. Following Child’s birth, Mother and Father lived in Utah with Child until July 21, 2020, when Mother and Child relocated to Rigby, Idaho, without Father. Since July 21, 2020, neither Child nor Mother returned to Utah, although Father continued to live there. Father maintains that Mother expressed an intent to return to living in Utah by September 2020 and actively participated in searching for apartments with Father in Utah after she and Child moved to Idaho. Mother disputes that she ever expressed an intention to return to Utah after July 21. In October 2020, Father petitioned for divorce from Mother in Utah; the same day, he filed a motion for temporary orders seeking custody and visitation rights to Child. The Idaho magistrate court’s decision in this case indicated that Mother answered the Utah proceeding on December 10. Then, in February 2021, Mother petitioned for divorce from Father in Jefferson County, Idaho. After Father was served with Mother’s petition on February 12, he retained Idaho counsel to specially appear and contest Idaho jurisdiction. Subsequently, Father filed a motion to dismiss Mother’s petition for divorce for lack of jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, arguing that the Utah court had “home state” jurisdiction. The Utah court held oral argument on Father’s motion for temporary custody orders and Mother’s motion to transfer jurisdiction and issued its written order on April 12. Pertinent to this matter, the Utah court concluded that Utah was not an inconvenient forum and that Mother had stipulated in her answer that jurisdiction was proper in Utah. In May, the Idaho magistrate court heard oral argument on Mother’s motion to accept jurisdiction and Father’s motion to dismiss. Following the hearing, the Idaho magistrate court informally conferred with the Utah court about which state was the “more proper” home state, and concluded that the Utah court was the more appropriate jurisdiction to be the home state under the UCCJEA. The magistrate court entered a judgment on May 28, dismissing the Idaho proceeding. Mother appealed dismissal of her proceedings. But the Idaho Supreme Court determined the Idaho magistrate court did not err in denying Mother's motion to accept jurisdiction and dismissing her petition for divorce. View "Swanson v. Swanson" on Justia Law

Erick Pena filed a declaratory action against Viking Insurance Company of Wisconsin (“Viking”), alleging the automobile insurance policy he purchased was illegal because it provided illusory minimum limits of UIM coverage. Pena then filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to declare that the UIM coverage was illusory. Viking filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that the policy was not illusory because it provided tangible benefits to a group of insured persons and that the offset provision in the policy complied with Idaho public policy. The district court granted Viking’s motion for summary judgment. Pena timely appealed. After review, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed, finding the policy at issue indeed provided illusory coverage. View "Pena v. Viking Insurance Company" on Justia Law

This case arose out of multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of Plan L03, the legislative redistricting plan adopted by the Idaho Commission for Reapportionment (“the Commission”) following the 2020 federal census. Petitioners generally argued that Plan L03 split more counties than was required to comport with federal constitutional requirements, rendering Plan L03 unconstitutional under the Idaho Constitution. The petitions were filed in the Idaho Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Petitioners requested the Court issue a writ of prohibition to restrain the Secretary of State from transmitting a copy of the Commission’s Final Report and Plan L03 to the President Pro Tempore of the Idaho Senate and the Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives. Finding there was no constitutional violation, the Supreme Court declined to issue the writ. View "Durst et al v. ID Comm. for Reapportionment" on Justia Law

Robert, David, and Troy Taylor were partners in a commercial fire prevention business based in Alaska. Troy later formed his own business that directly competed with the partnership. In January 2015, Robert, David, and Troy signed an eight-paragraph agreement (“the Agreement”) that settled all potential legal claims relating to Troy’s competing business. The Agreement provided that Robert and David would buy Troy’s interest in the partnership. In exchange, Troy agreed to pay Robert and David $30,000 each and not work in the fire prevention industry in Alaska and Nevada. In March 2018, Robert and David brought this action in Idaho alleging, among other things, that Troy had breached the Agreement by working for a competing fire prevention business in Nevada. Troy counterclaimed, asserting Robert and David had breached the Agreement. Robert and David voluntarily dismissed some claims and the district court dismissed the rest. In addition, the district court granted summary judgment in Troy’s favor on his breach of contract counterclaim. Robert and David appealed, challenging the district court’s rulings that: (1) the noncompete provision in the Agreement was unenforceable; (2) the Agreement was severable and enforceable without the noncompete provision; and (3) they could not assert an affirmative defense of excusable nonperformance based on their allegation that Troy materially breached the Agreement. After review, the Idaho Supreme Court found the district court only erred in finding the noncompete clause was severable from the Agreement as a matter of law. The Court affirmed in all other respects. View "Taylor v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Vincent Brown made two oral requests for reduction of sentence prior to the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and imposing sentence. After sentence was imposed, Brown filed one written motion to reduce sentence pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 35(b). The district court denied the motion, and Brown appealed that denial. Before reaching the merits of Brown’s appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court addressed three prior decisions concerning Rule 35(b). The Court disavowed its decision in Idaho v. Wersland, 873 P.2d 144 (1994), and abrogated the holding in Idaho v. Bottens, 52 P.3d 875 (Ct. App. 2002) to the extent those cases treated the one motion limit in Rule 35(b) as jurisdictional in effect. The Court also clarified that the one motion limit in Rule 35(b) was a procedural rule, but the Court applied this announcement only prospectively. In addition, the Court abrogated Idaho v. Hurst, 258 P.3d 950 (Ct. App. 2011) where the Court of Appeals interpreted the one motion limit in Rule 35(b) as applying to both written and oral motions for a reduction of sentence at any point after a sentence is announced. Here, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision denying Brown’s Rule 35(b) motion to reduce his sentence: "Brown did not show that under any reasonable view of the facts, the district court’s sentence is excessive." View "Idaho v. Brown" on Justia Law

In 2006, Timothy Dunlap was sentenced to death by a Caribou County, Idaho jury for the death of a Soda Springs bank teller killed in 1991. In 2008, Dunlap filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that numerous errors had occurred at his 2006 sentencing hearing. The district court dismissed the petition in its entirety. Dunlap appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the dismissal of all but two of Dunlap’s claims: (1) multiple claims of prosecutorial misconduct under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959); and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Upon remand, the district court held two evidentiary hearings, one involving each of Dunlap’s remaining claims. The district court found that Dunlap had failed to establish either claim and denied Dunlap’s request for post-conviction relief. Dunlap timely appealed. Finding no reversible error in these decisions, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Dunlap v. Idaho" on Justia Law