Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2006, during the pendency of divorce proceedings, Charles Earl Guess, his wife, and their respective attorneys agreed that Ms. Guess and her attorney would meet Mr. Guess at the parties’ residence so that they could walk through the house and look in a vault in the house with Mr. Guess present. When Ms. Guess and her attorney arrived at the house, they walked with Mr. Guess into the basement where the vault was located. Mr. Guess allowed his wife and her attorney to walk into the vault first, and then he pulled out a semiautomatic pistol, pointed it at them, and stated that he was going to kill them. While holding the pistol in his right hand, he struck Ms. Guess twice in the face with his left fist. She and her attorney were ultimately able to talk Mr. Guess into putting the gun down. After Ms. Guess and her attorney were able to leave the house, they drove to seek medical care for her and to contact the police. The State charged Mr. Guess with two counts of felony aggravated assault, and one count of misdemeanor battery. Ultimately, he and the State entered into a written plea agreement. The State agreed to file an amended information charging him with one count of aggravated assault alleged to have been committed against both victims, to which he would plead guilty. The State then recommended that he be sentenced to a withheld judgment and be placed on probation for no more than five years, and he could withdraw his guilty plea if the district court was unwilling to impose a sentence consistent with that recommendation. Mr. Guess pled guilty to the charge, and the court imposed a sentence consistent with the written plea agreement, with the period of probation being five years. Mr. Guess appealed the sentence. Finding no abuse of the court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Idaho v. Guess" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this permissive interlocutory appeal was a district court's determination that the law of the case doctrine prohibited it from making a retroactive determination of Defendant-Respondent Faron Hawkins' mental competency when he stood trial in 2008. A jury convicted defendant of two counts of robbery. He appealed his conviction, and the court of appeals vacated the decision and remanded the matter for a new trial. The appellate court determined that the district court erred by not having defendant undergo a mental health evaluation during his jury trial to determine whether or not he was competent to proceed. Based on the totality of the evidence presented to it, "including admitted exhibits and testimony presented during the competency hearing," the district court found that Hawkins was both presently competent to stand trial and had been competent to stand trial in January 2008. However, the court found that the law of the case required it to retry the case. The Supreme Court held that the language in the trial court record regarding a retroactive competency determination and the State being free to retry Hawkins if he was found presently competent, was not the law of the case. Because there was no legal analysis on the subject of retroactive competency determinations and no factual discussion from the Court of Appeals as to why one would not be possible in this case, the Supreme Court read that court's conclusory statement as an acknowledgement that it had no record on which to base a retroactive competency determination. Therefore the Court reversed the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Idaho v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Russell G. Jones appealed his conviction by jury on two counts of rape. The case was initially heard by the Idaho Court of Appeals, which affirmed on one count and reversed on the second. Defendant sought review, which the Supreme Court granted in order to consider the force and resistance necessary with respect to a charge of forcible rape. Given the weight and quantity of the unrefuted evidence across the board, versus the one statement regarding Defendant and the victim, the Court concluded that the district court erred in admitting certain statements made between Defendant and the victim, and that the admission of that statement was harmless. There was insufficient evidence on the element of resistance to support the conviction of forcible rape on Count II so the Court did not consider the issue of force. The conviction on Count II was accordingly reversed. View "Idaho v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Robert Barton, Jr. was found guilty by jury of solicitation of perjury. Defendant, the victim of aggravated battery, was charged with solicitation and conspiracy to commit perjury in connection to his testimony in the battery case. On appeal, Defendant argued that the jury should have been instructed on his defense of entrapment, and that such a defense was consistent with his plea of innocence. The State disagreed, arguing that no reasonable view of the evidence would support an instruction for entrapment and that such a defense is incompatible with his plea of innocence. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the district court did not err when it refused to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of entrapment, and affirmed the decision. View "Idaho v. Barton, Jr." on Justia Law

In 2006, Woodrow John Grant pleaded guilty to aggravated battery; he successfully completed a period of retained jurisdiction and was placed on probation. In 2009, Grant was charged with possession of methamphetamine, domestic battery, aggravated assault, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Grant's appointed counsel moved to withdraw, stating that Grant had reneged on an agreed-upon plea bargain and that communications between them had broken down. The district court denied the motion. Later, Grant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and domestic battery, and admitted to violating the terms of his probation. The district court considered a letter and live testimony from the victim of Grant's domestic battery, in which the victim expressed her opinions on Grant's crime, character, and the sentence that would be proper for him. Thereafter, the district court sentenced Grant to five years fixed and five years indeterminate for domestic battery, to be served concurrently with a sentence of two years fixed and three years indeterminate for possession of methamphetamine. The district court revoked Grant's probation and executed his previously suspended sentence of four years fixed and six years indeterminate. The two new sentences were to be served consecutively to the reinstated 2006 sentence. Grant requested leniency in three I.C.R. 35 motions, which the district court denied. Grant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by refusing to allow his counsel to withdraw, by considering the victim's impact statements in their entirety, and by refusing his requests for leniency. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court in all respects. View "Idaho v. Grant" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the trial court's decision to admit expert testimony regarding domestic violence and testimony of an excited utterance following his felony convictions of domestic violence and attempted strangulation. In addition, defendant challenged the deputy prosecutor's actions in soliciting testimony of the defendant's post-custody silence when accused of the crimes and the verdict finding defendant was a persistent violator. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Idaho v. Parton" on Justia Law

This case arose from a traffic stop and subsequent arrest of Defendant Phillip James Morgan. A Boise City police officer observed Morgan driving in a way that caused the officer to believe Defendant was trying to avoid him. The officer stopped Defendant after observing that Defendant's vehicle did not have a front license plate. Defendant was subsequently arrested for DUI. He filed a motion to suppress all evidence garnered from the traffic stop, arguing the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop. The district court concluded that although Defendant may not have actually violated traffic laws, the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion to believe that he had done so. Defendant's motion to suppress was denied, and he was convicted of felony DUI after a jury trial. Defendant appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding the officer lacked the reasonable, articulable suspicion necessary to justify the traffic stop. The judgment of conviction was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Idaho v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Defendant Daniel Straub pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter, and as part of his plea, agreed to pay restitution to his victims. After a hearing, the district court determined that Defendant owed $554,506.67 to the decedent's family, primarily for future medical insurance premiums and for five years of lost wages. Defendant appealed the restitution order, arguing that the court unreasonably or illegally interpreted the restitution statutes. Finding that Defendant did not waive his right to appeal the district court's order in his plea agreement, and that the district court abused its discretion in ordering Defendant to pay restitution for the victim's future lost wages, the Supreme Court reversed the order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Idaho v. Straub" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Randy McKinney was sentenced to death for first-degree murder, and received sentences for conspiracy to commit murder, robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. His death sentence was set aside in a federal habeas proceeding. Defendant and the State reached a sentencing agreement with regard to the murder charge for which he received a fixed life term without possibility of parole to be served concurrently with his other sentences. On appeal, Defendant alleged that he was illegally sentenced, violating the double jeopardy clause of both the state and federal constitutions, as well as Idaho's multiple-punishment statute (repealed in 1995). Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error in Defendant's sentences and affirmed them. View "Idaho v. McKinney" on Justia Law

Defendant Abraham Scraggins appealed two district court orders revoking his probation. Defendant was convicted of sexual battery of a minor in 1993, which required that he register as a sex offender in Idaho. In 2009, the State charged him with failure to register when he moved to Ada County in 2008. Defendant pled guilty and received a unified sentence of ten years, five of which were fixed. The sentence was suspended, and Defendant was placed on probation. Under the terms of his probation, Defendant was to serve time in jail at his probation officer's discretion without prior approval of the court. A month after sentencing, the State moved to revoke Defendant's probation, alleging he violated the terms of probation by drinking alcohol and failing to stay at his registered address for a nine-day period. Later in 2009, the State charged Defendant again with failing to register as a sex offender. In a plea agreement, Defendant admitted to violating the terms of his first probation, and pled guilty to failing to register in the second case. The district court revoked Defendant's probation in the first case, and imposed a unified ten-year sentence, with five and one-half years fixed. Less than two months later, probation officers performing a "residence check" found Defendant had contacted his victim, and that he had consumed alcohol. In lieu of filing a report of violation of his probation, Defendant served ten days of the discretionary jail time previously authorized by the district court. At a disposition hearing, Defendant objected to the district court revoking his probation based on these last violations. He argued that because he "had been punished already for this exact same conduct" by serving discretionary jail time, and because "there [was] no new conduct that he has been found in violation for," that a revocation of probation would be a violation of his due process rights. The district court rejected this argument, and accordingly revoked his probation in both cases. It then ordered that the sentences in both cases be executed. Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, which consolidated the cases on appeal. Upon review, the Court concluded that nothing the probation officers or district court did "affected any articulable due process right." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision to revoke Defendant's probation. View "Idaho v. Scraggins, Jr." on Justia Law