Light Week for Idaho's Appellate Courts

As Dennis travels the french countryside listening to Carla Bruni-Sarkozy while sampling freedom fries and royales with cheese, it appears Idaho's appellate courts have taken opportunity to enjoy their new found freedom. This past week, the Court of Appeals released two published criminal opinions while the Supreme Court went silent.

On June 10, Judge Gratton (joined by J. Lansing and Gutierrez) released the CoA's opinion in State v. Harrison. Mr. Harrison was convicted of enticing children, in violation of 18-1509(1)(b). On appeal, Mr. Harrison argued that "with the intent that the child shall be concealed from public view" modifies all offenses defined by 18-1509(1), not just 18-1509(1)(c). Secondly, Mr. Harrison argued that the statute was void for vagueness

Briefly, the Court held that 18-1509(1) is plain on its face and that the language only modifies the offense defined by 18-1509(1)(c). Secondy, the Court held Harrison had not preserved his "void for vagueness" challenge because there was no adverse ruling below by the trial court. The full opinion can be found at: http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/harrison%20opinion.pdf

Today, Judge Perry (joined by J. Gutierrez and Gratton) released the CoA's lengthy opinion in State v. Rossingnol. Mr. Rossignol raised challenges to various evidentiary rulings made by the trial court during his trial for various sex offenses with his daughter.

First off, the Court addressed Rossignol's argument that the court erred in allowing the jury to hear evidence of his post-arraignment flight. Specifically, he argued his flight was irrelevant and did not demonstrate consciousness of guilt for the instant charges because he also failed to appear at a hearing for separate perjury charges. In response, the CoA held "the existence of alternative reasons for the escape goes to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibilty." citing State v. Jeffers, 661 P.2d 1105, 1116 (Ariz. 1983).

The Court further noted "evidence need only be of slight relevance to meet the requirements of I.R.E. 401. I question how the Court reconciles its embracement of flight evidence with the Supreme Court's cautionary langauge in State v. Wrenn, 99 Idaho 506, 508 (1978) ("because of the debatable significance of flight as evidence of guilt")...

Secondly, Rossignol challenged numerous pornographic images and incest stories published to the jury. Briefly, the Court held the images were relevant b/c they corroborated the V's testimony, and the stories corroborated the intent elements of the crimes and were indicative of his motive and plan to engage in the alleged acts.

Thirdly, Rossignol argued he was denied the opportunity to fully cross-examine the V's treating psychologist b/c the exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege eliminates the privilege with respect to allegations of sexual abuse. By analogy, the CoA embraced the SCOID opinion regarding the exception to the marital privilege in State v. Moore, 131 Idaho 814 (1998). Rather than define a bright line rule, the Court concluded the exception is designed to encourage the disclosure of abuse and that any presumed error was harmless...

Rossignol also raised issue with the reasonable doubt instruction provided to the jury, and asserted due process and confrontation clause violations occurred when the Court admitted consistent statements by the V. The full opinion can be reviewed at: http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/Rossignol-opn.pdf