Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The State appealed the district court’s order suppressing evidence against Victor Garcia-Rodriguez. In 2014, Garcia-Rodriguez was pulled over after an Idaho State Police trooper witnessed Garcia-Rodriguez’s car briefly cross over the fog line while exiting Interstate 84. This stop ultimately led to Garcia-Rodriguez’s arrest. A search incident to arrest uncovered methamphetamine on his person, and Garcia-Rodriguez was charged with trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of paraphernalia. Garcia-Rodriguez filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which the district court granted. The State argued that the district court erred by suppressing the evidence because the stop was justified by reasonable suspicion, the arrest was justified by probable cause, and the search of Garcia-Rodriguez’s person was proper as a search incident to arrest. Because the Idaho Supreme Court decided this case on the issue of probable cause for the arrest and the subsequent search incident to arrest, it did not consider the issue of the initial stop. State consistently argued that Garcia-Rodriguez was arrested pursuant to Idaho Code section 49-301(1) for driving without a license and that the arresting officer reasonably concluded that Garcia-Rodriguez “would likely not appear in court, justifying [Garcia-Rodriguez’s] arrest pursuant to Idaho Code 49-301 and 49-1407(1).” That position was set forth in the State’s Affidavit in Support of Complaint or Warrant for Arrest, the State’s Memorandum Opposing Defendant’s Motion to Suppress under the heading “Basis for the Arrest,” and in the State’s Response to Defendant’s Reply to State’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, once again under the heading “Basis for the Arrest.” The State’s current argument that Idaho Code section 49-1407 was immaterial to the question of the constitutionality of the arrest was nowhere to be found. As such, the State’s argument that the arrest and search incident to arrest were constitutional based on probable cause regardless of state law statutory limitations was not properly before the Supreme Court. The State therefore waived its argument that Garcia-Rodriguez's arrest was justified pursuant to 49-1407(1). The Court therefore affirmed the district court. View "Idaho v. Garcia-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

In May 2012, James Daly was charged with six felony counts of Lewd and Lascivious Conduct with a Minor Under Sixteen. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Daly pleaded guilty to one count. At the start of the sentencing hearing, Daly moved to substitute counsel. The district court denied the motion. Daly then moved to continue the hearing, so that new counsel could be present for sentencing. The district court also denied this motion, indicating “[w]e have already continued the sentencing in this case for a month to get an additional mental health evaluation, and I don’t think that would be a sensible course of action.” The district court then sentenced Daly to twenty years, with three years fixed, and retained jurisdiction. Daly appealed. The Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that: (1) it had jurisdiction over Daly’s claims under the nunc pro tunc judgment because it related back to the original judgment and enabled Daly to appeal any issues in the original judgment; and (2) Daly did not receive the “full and fair” hearing he should have received on his motion to substitute counsel. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals remanded for a hearing on the motion to substitute counsel and the motion for a continuance. The State petitioned the Idaho Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeals decision, specifically on the question of whether the duty to inquire into the reasons for requesting substitute counsel applies to retained counsel. The Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for review. Thereafter, Daly moved to dismiss his appeal and vacate the Court of Appeals decision because he had been granted parole. The State concurred in the motion, provided the Court of Appeals decision was vacated in the dismissal. The Supreme Court reviewed this matter on the issue of whether the district court erred in denying Daly’s motion to substitute counsel and to continue the sentencing hearing so he could retain different counsel. After review, the Supreme Court found no reversible error in the district court’s judgment, and affirmed Daly’s conviction and sentence. View "Idaho v. Daly" on Justia Law

In November 2013, Christina Wisdom pled guilty to one count of injury to a child. That plea was based on Wisdom allowing her husband, Ronald Wisdom, to access Wisdom’s daughter, M.L., who was born in a prior marriage, despite knowing that Ronald had previously sexually abused M.L. This appeal centered on a restitution award the district court entered under Idaho Code section 19-5304. The award required Wisdom to pay $11,069.82 for counseling services for the victim of her crime. Wisdom appealed the award to the Idaho Court of Appeals, which vacated the award for lack of causation. The Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for review, and affirmed the district court. View "Idaho v. Wisdom" on Justia Law

Defendant Patrick Bailey pled guilty to one count of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen years of age. The alleged victim his ten-year-old daughter, who was “so severely impaired by autism that she could not speak a full sentence or describe anything that had happened to her.” Defendant contended that the district court abused its discretion in imposing his life sentence. Finding no such abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant’s conviction and sentence. View "Idaho v. Bailey" on Justia Law

Appellant Jason Zane Garner appeals the district court order revoking his probation and reinstating his sentence. Appellant Jason Zane Garner appeals the district court order revoking his probation and reinstating his sentence. Following his completion of a rider program, Garner was placed on supervised probation for five years. The terms of his probation included, among other things, that he: (1) not leave the Third Judicial District without written permission from his probation officer; (2) abide by the No Contact Order entered in the stalking case; and (3) follow the instructions of his probation officer. In May 2015, the stalking victim saw Garner outside Albertson’s in Boise. The victim exited her workplace and recognized Garner’s Toyota truck about thirty yards away in the parking lot in front of the grocery store. She took pictures of the truck (which were clear enough to reveal his license plate), then left the scene and notified police. Although she did not approach the truck or speak with Garner, she later testified that he was sitting in his truck and appeared to be smiling at her in the rearview mirror. A few days later, the victim reported to police that her neighbors had seen Garner driving past her house repeatedly. Following this incident, an arrest warrant was issued for Garner for allegedly violating the terms of probation. Two hearings were subsequently conducted by two different district judges. One judge conducted an evidentiary hearing. A second judge conducted the disposition hearing. At the disposition hearing, Garner’s probation officer testified that Garner changed his story repeatedly when asked about his presence in Boise and did not take responsibility for his actions. When asked if Garner’s behavior merited imposition of the sentence (or whether he should be placed on another rider), the probation officer testified that further efforts to rehabilitate Garner would likely be unsuccessful. The district court imposed the entire ten-year term of imprisonment, with six years fixed. Garner filed a Rule 35 motion to reduce his sentence. Because Garner did not produce any new or additional evidence to support the motion, it was denied. Garner timely appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Idaho v. Garner" on Justia Law

The State appealed the district court’s grant of post-conviction relief for John Wurdemann. Wurdemann was convicted on seven felony counts related to the June 2000 attack of Linda LeBrane. In its order, the district court ruled that Wurdemann’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated because trial counsel failed to properly challenge the admission of eyewitness identifications. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wurdemann v. Idaho" on Justia Law

Thomas Kelley appealed the district court’s award of restitution entered under Idaho Code section 37-2732(k). The Idaho Court of Appeals vacated the restitution award, and the Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for review. Because the Court concluded the State failed to support its request for restitution with sufficient evidence, it vacated the award. View "Idaho v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Jamie Nelson appealed the district court’s award of restitution entered under Idaho Code section 37-2732(k). The Idaho Court of Appeals vacated the restitution award, and the Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for review. Because the Court concluded the State failed to support its request for restitution with sufficient evidence, it vacated the award. View "Idaho v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Jeremy Cunningham appealed a district court’s award of restitution. In September 2014, a jury convicted Cunningham of possession of a controlled substance. The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with one-and-one-half years fixed. Thereafter, the district court held a restitution hearing, where the State sought to recoup its prosecution costs under Idaho Code section 37-2732(k). The State requested $2,240, which reflects 16 hours of work billed at $140 per hour. Cunningham argued the hourly rate was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, but he offered no evidence or further arguments on his behalf. The district court awarded the State its requested prosecution costs, plus $100 “for lab fees under the Drug Donation Act.” The award totaled $2,340. Cunningham appealed, and the Idaho Court of Appeals vacated the award and remanded for further consistent proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that insufficient evidence supported the award because it was based only on the State’s unsworn Statement of Costs. The Idaho Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for review and concluded the restitution award was indeed not supported by evidence. “Restitution under section 37-2732(k) must be based on a preponderance of the evidence, and an award of restitution will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence.” Here, the Court found that the State’s unsworn Statement of Costs did not rise to the level of “substantial evidence.” The Court held that unsworn representations, even by an officer of the court, do not constitute “substantial evidence” upon which restitution under section 37-2732(k) could be based. View "Idaho v. Cunningham" on Justia Law

Washington resident and appellant Douglas Meyer appealed his felony conviction for possession of over three ounces of marijuana. Meyer argued the district court erred when it denied his request for a jury instruction on the necessity defense. Meyer had a prescription for medical marijuana and was the designated medical marijuana provider for Tammy Rose. He was arrested while driving through Idaho on his way to California with over three ounces of marijuana in his vehicle. He argued that the district court was required to provide a necessity defense jury instruction because he had made a prima facie showing of each of the elements of that defense. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in its reasoning for the denial, but not in its conclusion. “Without a prima facie showing that Meyer did not have any legal alternative to manage his pain for a short period of time, including through the procurement of medications which [were] legal in the State of Idaho, Meyer cannot show that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury as to necessity.” View "Idaho v. Meyer" on Justia Law