The Idaho Supreme Court did not release any opinions last week. The Court of Appeals, however, issued three.In State v. Larry Hoak, http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/Hoak,%20Larry.pdf, the COA affirmed a conviction for first-degree stalking. The trial court allowed the admission of prior convictions for violating no contact orders as well as evidence of threats of physical violence made by Hoak against the victim (including threats to cut off her legs, decapitate her, blow up and/or burn down her house with her inside) and a alleged prior rape! (A conviction for domestic battery was let in during cross-examination of the defendant.) But it also gave limiting instructions. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the ruling because the evidence was relevant to show the stalking was done "maliciously" and to show the stalking would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress.
In State v. Sheldon Stone, http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/stone%20opinion.pdf, the appellant asked: "How much evidence is needed to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice as required by I.C. Section 19-2117?" Answer: Not too damn much. In fact, damned little.
Finally, the COA held that a police officer may testify at a DUI trial to his/her opinion that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and too impaired to operate a motor vehicle. (IRE 704 allows testimony in the form of an opinion even if it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. The appellant relied on case law suggesting the opposite when the testimony invades the province of the jury.) The fact that the defense appears to be "I was not driving" instead of "I was not impaired" may have affected the COA's decision in this case. Unlike State v. Hester, 118 Idaho 688 (1988), the state's witness here did not testify that the defendant was the one who committed the offense.
State v. Larry Corwin, http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/corwin%20opinion.pdf.
No comments:
Post a Comment