Randall S. Rothwell, 154 Idaho 125

Rothwell convicted of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen in Idaho state court.
Defense sought to introduce two character witnesses claiming Rothwell is trustworthy with children; district court excluded as irrelevant.
State admitted evidence suggesting Rothwell or his parents harassed A.N. and her mother via a lawn chair incident; chair photo admitted.
Prosecutor closed with argument challenged as improper for prejudice and mischaracterization; defense asserted improper influence on verdict.
Rothwell received a unified 25-year sentence with a six-year determinate term; retained jurisdiction, which was later relinquished.
On appeal, issues centered on admissibility of character evidence, relevance of harassment evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and sentence adequacy; conviction affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Rothwell’s character evidence about trustworthiness with children	Prosecution argued trait not admissible; defense contends trait relevant	Rothwell's sexual morality with children is pertinent character trait	Erroneous exclusion but admissibility allowed; harmless error overall
Harassment evidence via chair placement; relevance to guilt	Chair evidence shows hostility toward accuser and guilt consciousness	Evidence lacks probative value; not relevant to guilt	Admission of chair and photo erroneous; however harmless in aggregate
Prosecutorial mischaracterization in closing and appeal to passion	Misstated evidence and urged improper inferences	Closing argument mischaracterized some evidence; violated rights	No reversible prosecutorial misconduct; no due process violation found
Use of limited-purpose evidence as substantive in closing	Nurse, detective, and mother testimony used substantively	Testimony admitted for limited purposes; closing treated as substantive	No fundamental error; misuse not shown based on record
Sentence reasonable and not an abuse of discretion	Narrow review shows proper sentence	Retained jurisdiction and factors warrant probation consideration	Sentence affirmed; no abuse of discretion; probation not ordered

State v. Shutz, 143 Idaho 200, 141 P.3d 1069 (Idaho 2006) (rule on relevance and balancing of evidence; Rule 403 abuse of discretion framework)
State v. Sanchez, 147 Idaho 521, 211 P.3d 130 (Ct. App. 2009) (Rule 404/405 analysis for character evidence; cross-examination limits)
State v. Clark, 115 Idaho 1056, 772 P.2d 263 (Ct. App. 1989) (limits on admissibility of character trait evidence)
State v. Phillips, 144 Idaho 82, 156 P.3d 583 (Ct. App. 2007) (role of closing argument; proper limits)
State v. Reynolds, 120 Idaho 445, 816 P.2d 1002 (Ct. App. 1991) (closing argument guidance; framework for evaluation)
State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 245 P.3d 961 (Ct. App. 2010) (fundamental error standard in closing)
State v. Thumm, —, 285 P.3d 348 (Ct. App. 2012) (fundamental error analysis in review)
State v. Hairston, 133 Idaho 496, 988 P.2d 1170 (1999) (limited-purpose evidence not to be treated as substantive)