Robert J. Frauenberger, 297 P.3d 257

Frauenberger was convicted by a jury of three counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen and one count of delivery of marijuana to a person under eighteen; the district court imposed concurrent ten-year sentences with two years fixed for lewd conduct and a concurrent four-year sentence with one year fixed for marijuana.
The charging documents used the pseudonym Bonnie Noe for the victim, while the jury instructions used the victim’s true name (B.H.).
The victim testified at trial under her true name and was believed to be the same person referenced by the pseudonym.
Frauenberger argued lack of jurisdiction, a fatal variance between charging and jury instructions, and insufficient evidence due to the pseudonym; he also challenged alleged prosecutorial misconduct and the sentences as excessive.
The appellate court affirmed, holding the pseudonym did not defeat jurisdiction or notice, that any variance and evidentiary issues were not reversible errors, and that sentences were not excessive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction and variance from pseudonym	Jurisdiction and notice defective due to Bonnie Noe	Pseudonym for B.H. did not mislead; information sufficient	No jurisdictional defect; no reversible variance.
Sufficiency of the evidence	Evidence insufficient because B.H. and Bonnie Noe are not proven same	Bonnie Noe is B.H.; evidence sufficient	Sufficient evidence; same victim identified.
Mistrial for prosecutorial misconduct	Misconduct occurred; mistrial warranted	Mistrial not warranted; errors harmless	Mistrial not warranted; any error harmless.
Prosecutorial closing argument misconduct	Closing compounded prejudice; fundamental error	Arguments permissible to draw inferences; not fundamental error	No fundamental error; arguments within prosecutorial latitude.
Sentence review	Sentence is excessive	Sentence is within court’s discretion given offenses and history	Not an abuse of discretion; sentences affirmed.

State v. Jones, 140 Idaho 755 (Idaho 2004) (jurisdictional sufficiency of charging document; can be raised on appeal)
State v. Severson, 147 Idaho 694 (Idaho 2009) (information confers jurisdiction; questions reviewable free of jurisdictional doubts)
State v. Windsor, 110 Idaho 410 (Idaho 1985) (variance analysis; double jeopardy concerns addressed by record of proceedings)
State v. Smith, 102 Idaho 108 (Idaho 1981) (records of trial preclude second prosecutions for same offense; information sufficiency )
State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (Idaho 2010) (fundamental error standard for unwaived claims; non-structural standard for reviewing errors)
State v. Ellington, 151 Idaho 53 (Idaho 2011) (prosecutorial misconduct; gratuitous testimony imputes to state for purposes of misconduct analysis)
State v. Sherrod, 131 Idaho 56 (Idaho 1998) (variance and fair notice concerns in appellate review)