State v. Alwin, 426 P.3d 1260

In August 2015 Officer Cody Cohen stopped a Mercedes; the driver sped away and a brief multi-officer pursuit ensued but was disengaged.
About 15 minutes after the stop Officer Cohen viewed a photograph from his patrol computer and identified the registered owner, Jeffrey Lynn Alwin, as the driver; a warrant issued and Alwin later surrendered.
At trial the State admitted a prior booking photograph of Alwin (headshot showing him in yellow scrubs with a black eye); defense objected only by citing I.R.E. 404(b).
The jury convicted Alwin of felony eluding; the district court denied a post-trial motion for new trial challenging admission of the booking photo.
The Court of Appeals reversed; the Idaho Supreme Court granted review and affirmed: the booking photo was not 404(b) evidence and one instance of prosecutorial misconduct during closing did not amount to fundamental error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Alwin)	Held
Whether the booking/booking-style photo was inadmissible prior-bad-act evidence under I.R.E. 404(b)	Photo was offered for identity/verification, lacked typical mugshot indicia, and was probative	Photo was a booking/mugshot indicating prior arrest; admission was 404(b) evidence and required pretrial notice and balancing	The photo lacked typical mugshot indicia and was admissible for identification; not 404(b) evidence; no abuse of discretion
Whether denial of a new trial was an abuse of discretion based on admission of the photo	Admission was proper and harmless; no statutory ground for new trial	Admission undermined fairness; district court should have granted new trial	Denial was not an abuse of discretion because admission was proper and not reversible error
Whether prosecutor’s closing statements constituted impermissible vouching/attorney opinion or reliance on facts outside the record amounting to fundamental error	Prosecutor’s credibility and identification comments were reasonable inferences from the record and responsive to defense impeachment; jury instruction cures	Comments included personal guarantees and disagreement with defense expert based on prosecutor’s own view — constituted misconduct	Some comments (personal opinion re: expert) were misconduct but not fundamental error; jury instruction cured prejudice; conviction stands

State v. Lankford, 162 Idaho 477, 399 P.3d 804 (Idaho 2017) (standards for reviewing prosecutorial misconduct and fundamental error analysis)
State v. Cunningham, 97 Idaho 650, 551 P.2d 605 (Idaho 1976) (mugshots with typical indicia are prejudicial and implicate admission concerns)
State v. Carter, 103 Idaho 917, 655 P.2d 434 (Idaho 1982) (photographs showing a defendant’s appearance may be admissible to assist jury when not overly prejudicial)
State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 245 P.3d 961 (Idaho 2010) (framework for fundamental-error review of unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Grist, 147 Idaho 49, 205 P.3d 1185 (Idaho 2009) (two-tiered I.R.E. 404(b) analysis: establish act then 403 balancing)
United States v. Barnes, 365 F.2d 509 (D.C. Cir. 1966) (classic condemnation of mugshots as a badge of criminality)
United States v. McCoy, 848 F.2d 743 (6th Cir. 1988) (error in admitting mugshots showing height lines and police placards)