Two New COA Cases

State v. Wright, No. 34017, while bad for Mr. Wright, actually has some good law for us. The Court states that expert testimony regarding the facts that affect the accuracy of eyewitness testimony should be admitted when eyewitness identification is:

1) a key element of the prosecutor's case, but is not substantially corroborated by evidence giving it independent reliability;
2) the defendant offers qualified expert testimony on specific psychological factors shown by the record; that
3) could have affected the accuracy of the identification; and
4) which are not likely to be known or understood by the jury.

The Court found that was not the case in Mr. Wright's case, however.
http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/wright34017.pdf

In State v. Ruperd, No. 32761, the Court of Appeals held that the District Court abused its discretion when it refused to reschedule the defendant's motion to suppress when the defendant failed to appear at the original hearing date. It wrote "[n]othing in I.C.R. 12 gives the district courts the discretion to treat a defendant's failure to appear as a waiver of his or her right to have a hearing on a timely motion."
http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/ruperd32761.pdf

Congratulations to Heather Carlson of SAPD.