Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant-appellant Laura Smith appealed her conviction for aiding and abetting the delivery of psilocybin mushrooms to an undercover detective. She contended the district court erred in overruling an objection to an out-of-court statement made by the person from whom they purchased the mushrooms about his supplier on the grounds that it was hearsay and violated the Defendant’s right to cross-examine the declarant. Defendant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Idaho v. Smith" on Justia Law

In 2014, Thomas Kralovec was arrested by Boise City Officer Tad Miller for public intoxication and resisting and obstructing arrest. While he was being transported to jail, Kralovec was antagonistic. He cursed, insulted, and threatened Officer Miller. Upon arrival at the jail, Kralovec was met by four deputies. Kralovec remained combative and non-compliant during the intake process. The four deputies took turns restraining Kralovec to search him and remove his handcuffs so that he could be left alone in the cell. The deputies placed Kralovec on a concrete bench in the cell in a prone position with his legs in a “figure four leg trap” with his face to the wall. At some point during the search, Kralovec’s right leg came free and kicked out, knocking a microphone loose from the clip on one deputy’s shirt and allegedly striking another in the shoulder. The incident was recorded by a camera in the holding cell. The State filed an information charging Kralovec with one count of battery on a peace officer, later amending it to charge Kralovec with battery on a correctional officer. State filed notice of its intent to introduce audio evidence of Kralovec’s arrest and transport to jail to show Kralovec’s knowledge and intent pursuant to Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b). Kralovec objected, arguing that the evidence was either not relevant, or its probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The district court concluded that the evidence was res gestae evidence temporally connected with the alleged battery and had a tendency to explain Kralovec’s alleged misbehavior during the booking process. The district court further concluded that the evidence was admissible under Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b) as it was relevant to Kralovec’s intent. Kralovec was ultimately convicted on one count of battery on a correctional officer. On appeal, Kralovec argued: (1) the State failed to present constitutionally sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the State sustained its burden of proving the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the district court abused its discretion when it admitted audio evidence of Kralovec’s encounter with Officer Miller as res gestae and under Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b); and (3) the sentencing judge abused his discretion by refusing to review the trial transcripts and exhibits prior to sentencing. Finding no error in the district court’s judgment of conviction, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Idaho v. Kralovec" on Justia Law

The question before the Supreme Court in this matter was whether exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless blood draw. Defendant-appellant Daniel Chenobieff argued the blood draw violated his constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and, consequently, that the district court erred in affirming the magistrate court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the blood draw. The district court specifically pointed to the prosecutor’s attempt to obtain a warrant through the on-call magistrate who could not be reached. The district court also made reference to the delay resulting from Chernobieff's refusal to perform field sobriety tests, but in doing so the court erred. Any delay caused by Chernobieff's exercise of his Constitutional rights may not be considered. The court concluded that the magistrate considered the totality of circumstances and that the magistrate’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. The Supreme Court concurred with the district court. "Even excluding the delay related to the field sobriety tests, there was substantial evidence to support the magistrate’s findings. Therefore, we find that the district court did not err in affirming the denial of the motion to suppress the results of the blood draw." View "Idaho v. Chernobieff" on Justia Law

Tarango Deforest Padilla was convicted of two counts of grand theft and was found to be a persistent violator. He appealed his conviction, and it was affirmed by the Idaho Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion. He later filed a petition for post-conviction relief, contending that his attorney provided ineffective assistance in failing to file a motion to suppress. The district court dismissed that petition. Defendant again appealed. Finding that no such motion would have been successful, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Padilla’s petition for relief. View "Padilla v. New Mexico" on Justia Law

James Clark was charged with misdemeanor trespass in the Idaho Industrial Commission office in Boise. At the close of the State’s evidence at trial, Clark moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the court denied. The jury found Clark guilty and he appealed to the district court. The district court affirmed the denial of the acquittal motion and upheld the jury verdict. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the judgment of acquittal should have been granted. The State appealed. Finding that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the district court's judgment, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Idaho v. Clark" on Justia Law

Blair Olsen served as sheriff of Jefferson County from January 1989 until May 2015, when he resigned due to his conviction in this case. While he was the sheriff, the county provided Olsen with two cell phones and paid the bills for those phones. It initially did so because of unreliable service in different sides of the county. He also carried a personal cell phone and paid the charges for that service plan from his own funds. Once county-wide coverage was available from one of the providers, he discontinued service with the other provider and had both of his county-provided cell phones with the same provider. One cell phone was to be his primary cell phone and the other was to be his backup cell phone. At the same time, he terminated his personal cell phone service, but had the telephone number of his personal cell phone transferred to the backup cell phone. At some point, he permitted his wife to carry the backup cell phone for her personal use. The issue of Olsen’s wife using the backup cell phone became an election issue. Olsen asked the county commissioners to refer the matter to the Attorney General in an attempt to clear his name. A deputy attorney general obtained an indictment against Olsen charging him with three felony counts of knowingly using public money to make purchases for personal purposes based upon his wife’s use of the backup cell phone. Prior to trial, Olsen moved to dismiss the indictment or merge the three counts into one on the ground that the prosecution for three counts violated his right against double jeopardy. The charges were tried to a jury, and Olsen was found guilty of all three counts. The district court withheld judgment and placed Olsen on three years’ probation, and he appealed. The district court ruled that "I think the statute gives the prosecutor very clearly a substantial amount of discretion that says that the incidents may be aggregated into one count, but it doesn’t say they have to be aggregated into one count." In so holding, Supreme Court found that the district court erred. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of one count of misuse of public funds and remanded this case to vacate two other counts and amend the order withholding judgment accordingly. View "Idaho v. Olsen" on Justia Law