Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In 2017, Guy Bracali-Gambino pleaded guilty to possession of major contraband in a correctional facility. On direct appeal, the Idaho Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed his conviction and sentence. Bracali-Gambino subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing in relevant part that his trial counsel had coerced him into pleading guilty, provided erroneous legal advice regarding sentencing enhancements for persistent violators, and failed to investigate the prosecution’s evidence. Bracali-Gambino contended, that considering these errors, his trial counsel had been ineffective. Except for a portion of one of Bracali-Gambino’s claims (Claim II), the district court summarily dismissed his claims relevant to this appeal without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The district court also ultimately dismissed the one remaining claim following an evidentiary hearing. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Bracali-Gambino’s petition for post-conviction relief. Claim II failed because Bracali-Gambino specifically disclaimed, while under oath at his change of plea hearing, that anyone (which included his defense counsel) had coerced or pressured him into pleading guilty. Claim III failed because Bracali-Gambino’s conclusory allegations were not sufficient to show that he was prejudiced by the purported erroneous legal advice. Finally, Claim VI failed because Bracali-Gambino did not provide a sufficient explanation as to how certain testimony would have contradicted the State’s evidence that he attempted to possess major contraband. View "Bracali-Gambino v. Idaho" on Justia Law

After methamphetamine was found on his person during a pat search, Appellant John Doe was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance and two related misdemeanors under the Juvenile Corrections Act (“JCA”). Doe moved to suppress this evidence as the product of an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment, which the magistrate court denied. Doe then sought permission to appeal the magistrate court’s decision to the district court, sitting in its intermediate appellate capacity. When the magistrate court denied permissive appeal, an intermediate appeal was filed with the district court. The district court dismissed Doe’s appeal, concluding that a permissive appeal was not available to Doe because he had not yet been adjudicated of any violation under the JCA. Doe then appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, arguing: (1) he was “within the purview” of the JCA; and (2) Idaho Code section 20-528 permitted an appeal as a matter of right to a juvenile defendant whose motion to suppress has been denied. The Idaho Supreme Court concluded the plain language of the statute did not permit a juvenile defendant to file this type of interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of John Doe’s interlocutory appeal. View "Idaho v. John Doe" on Justia Law

An Idaho district court denied Jared Head’s motion to strike certain evidence supporting a restitution order. Jared and his wife, Teresa, worked as onsite managers at the Village Inn Motel in Malad City, Idaho. Following an investigation by the Oneida County Sheriff’s Office, Jared and Teresa were separately charged with grand theft. After pleading guilty to grand theft, Jared was ordered to pay $24,535.23 in restitution for allowing people to stay at the motel without paying, and for accepting rent payments that he did not relinquish to the motel owners. Relevant to this appeal, some of the State’s evidence supporting the restitution amount related to a specific hotel guest, S.G. Just before resting its case at the restitution hearing, the State disclosed that S.G. had been found incompetent to stand trial in an unrelated criminal case several months earlier. Jared then sought to strike any testimony, exhibits, and statements related to S.G., arguing the State withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of his due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The district court denied Jared’s motion after concluding that his due process claim was moot because Brady did not apply to restitution hearings, which the district court couched as civil proceedings. Jared appealed, arguing the district court erred in applying an incorrect legal standard to deny his motion to strike. Finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. View "Idaho v. Head" on Justia Law

In 2019, Officer Pallas was off duty and not in uniform when he noticed defendant-respondent Jonathan Bell at an Albertsons grocery store in Hailey, Idaho. Bell appeared to be unsteady on his feet, was having difficulty walking, and appeared confused. As Pallas watched Bell get into the driver’s seat of his vehicle and begin to drive, he called Officer Murphy, who was Pallas’ training officer and on duty, to report Bell as possibly driving under the influence. Murphy told Pallas to call dispatch, which he did. Pallas gave dispatch a description of the vehicle, the license plate number, and reported that the driver appeared to be intoxicated. The issue this case presented for the Idaho Supreme Court's review centered on the scope of its holding in Idaho v. Clarke, 446 P.3d 451 (2019). There, the Court held that an individual could not be arrested without a warrant for a misdemeanor that was completed outside the arresting officer’s presence. The State of Idaho argued that the “in the presence of the arresting officer” requirement under Clarke could be satisfied by the collective knowledge of more than one officer to establish probable cause. Thus, though the arresting officer here did not witness Bell’s driving pattern for the DUI, the State argued he had sufficient “collective knowledge” from others to carry out the arrest. The magistrate court agreed with this position below and denied Bell’s motion to suppress. However, Bell appealed to the district court, which reversed the magistrate court’s decision, concluding that the Idaho Constitution prohibited a police officer from making a warrantless arrest for a DUI committed outside the officer’s presence, even if the officer had probable cause for that offense through his collective knowledge from another officer. Finding no reversible error in that decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision. View "Idaho v. Bell" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Robert Miller appealed his conviction for felony driving under the influence (“DUI”) and the district court’s application of a sentencing enhancement based on a prior conviction for felony DUI within the previous fifteen years. On appeal, Miller argued: (1) the district court erred in dismissing the jury before it heard and determined the facts regarding the sentencing enhancement without first obtaining a valid waiver of Miller’s right to a jury trial; (2) the appropriate remedy for the error was to determine the sentencing enhancement did not apply; and (3) if the sentencing enhancement was still applicable to Miller, his sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial on whether Miller should be subject to the sentencing enhancement. Given the State’s concession that the district court committed fundamental error, the Idaho Supreme Court concluded the appropriate remedy was to vacate Miller’s sentence and remand for a new trial to determine whether the sentencing enhancement applied to Miller. View "Idaho v. Miller" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Mark Lankford appealed for the third time his 1983 convictions for the first-degree murders of Robert and Cheryl Bravence near Grangeville, Idaho. Errors in Lankford’s first two trials in 1984 and 2008 resulted in those convictions being vacated. Lankford was retried in 2019 and was again convicted of first-degree murder. Lankford appealed his third conviction, arguing: (1) the district court abused its discretion when it allowed the State to question Lankford’s brother about statements Lankford made on a late-disclosed prison phone recording; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction when the “law of the case doctrine” is applied to his case; and (3) the district court erred in denying Lankford’s motion to dismiss for a speedy trial violation. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. View "Idaho v. Lankford" on Justia Law

Brandon Bahr appealed a district court’s summary dismissal of his untimely petition for post-conviction relief. Bahr filed his untimely petition roughly two years after the one-year statute of limitations had expired. The State responded with a motion seeking summary dismissal. Bahr opposed dismissal, arguing the limitations period should have been equitably tolled based on his alleged lack of access to the Idaho courts while transferred to, and incarcerated in, Texas prison facilities. The district court granted the State’s motion for summary dismissal. Bahr argued on appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court that the district court erred by denying him equitable tolling, and by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing concerning whether Bahr lacked access to the Idaho courts while incarcerated in Texas. The Supreme Court affirmed: "Even if Bahr was denied access to the Idaho courts while in Texas, a fact which we have not determined, he is not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to allege any diligent efforts to pursue his rights while in Texas." View "Bahr v. Idaho" on Justia Law

Sean Anderson appealed his conviction and sentence for aggravated assault on a police officer. Anderson argued on appeal: (1) the district court erred by instructing the jury on a different theory of assault than what was alleged in the charging Information; (2) the district court erred by refusing to give his proposed jury instruction on the misdemeanor offense of discharge of a firearm aimed at another; and (3) the district court imposed an excessive sentence. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed Anderson’s judgment of conviction, finding that the district court did not abuse its sentencing discretion. View "Idaho v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Defendant Stacy Ingraham appealed her convictions and sentences for possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, destruction of evidence, and grand theft by possession of stolen property. She argued she was denied her right to a public trial under both the Idaho and U.S. constitutions, and that the district court erred by publishing a video exhibit to the jury after it began deliberations. Additionally, she contended the district court erred in allowing the jury to consider a prior felony conviction for purposes of a persistent violator enhancement where that conviction had previously been “deemed” a misdemeanor pursuant to Idaho Code section 19-2604. After review, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed defendant's convictions, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "Idaho v. Ingraham" on Justia Law

A coalition of media companies petitioned the Idaho Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition to vacate a nondissemination order issued by the magistrate court in the pending criminal action of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger. The Supreme Court expedited the case and ordered briefing from the parties. The Court also granted motions to intervene filed by the two parties to this case, the State of Idaho, Latah County Prosecutor (“the State”) and the defendant, Bryan Kohberger, who were also permitted to file briefs. After review of the briefs submitted, the Supreme Court dispensed with oral argument was unnecessary to resolve this case. The underlying case involved the 2022 murder of four University of Idaho students, for which Kohberger was arrested and charged with committing. The case drew widespread publicity. Recognizing the high-profile nature of the case and the extensive coverage it has received, along with the need to minimize possible pretrial prejudice, Kohberger’s attorneys and the attorneys for the State stipulated to the nondissemination order. Shortly after the order was entered, the medial companies challenged the constitutionality of the mondissemination order and sought extraordinary relief to protect free speech rights and the media’s ability to cover the case under the U.S. and Idaho Constitutions. The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that neither a writ of mandamus nor a writ of prohibition were appropriate remedies at this time. View "Associated Press, et al. v. Second Judicial District, et al." on Justia Law