State v. Amstad, 431 P.3d 238

On Jan. 20, 2017, police approached a parked vehicle on the University of Idaho campus; officer smelled marijuana and, after knocking, observed a baggie of suspected marijuana on the driver’s lap when Amstad opened the passenger door.
Amstad was charged under I.C. § 37-2732(d) (unlawful to be "present at or on premises of any place" where illegal controlled substances are held or used).
Amstad moved to dismiss arguing the statute does not cover a person in a vehicle; the magistrate granted the motion and dismissed the charge.
The State appealed; the district court affirmed, holding that "premises" and "place" do not include a car and concluding the State had advanced a new theory on appeal.
The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and held the district court erred: a vehicle in a parking lot can be "present at or on premises of any place" under § 37-2732(d).
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a vehicle in a parking lot is within the scope of I.C. § 37-2732(d)	Vehicle used as a stationary place; a parked car can be a "place" or on the "premises" where drugs are held; statute should cover such conduct	Statute’s language ("premises"/"place") does not include motor vehicles; Legislature elsewhere specified vehicles when intended	Vehicle in a parking lot can be "present at or on premises of any place"; being in a vehicle does not preclude liability under § 37-2732(d)
Whether the State advanced a new theory on appeal (precluding review)	State consistently argued that parked cars are a "place" and raised the issue below and on appeal	District court concluded the State reframed the issue to focus on parking lot vs. vehicle	State did not advance a new theory; district court erred to dismiss on that basis

State v. Dunlap, 155 Idaho 345, 313 P.3d 1 (statutory interpretation principles; give words plain meaning and consider statute as whole)
State v. Owens, 158 Idaho 1, 343 P.3d 30 (appellate review of statutory interpretation is free review)
Borley v. Smith, 149 Idaho 171, 233 P.3d 102 (standards for district court intermediate appellate review)
Jen-Rath Co., Inc. v. Kit Mfg. Co., 137 Idaho 330, 48 P.3d 659 (definition of ambiguity in statutes)
Hamilton ex rel. Hamilton v. Reeder Flying Serv., 135 Idaho 568, 21 P.3d 890 (ambiguity not established merely because parties offer differing interpretations)
City of Sandpoint v. Sandpoint Indep. Highway Dist., 139 Idaho 65, 72 P.3d 905 (statutory construction: ascertain legislative intent, consider text and policy)
Mickelsen Const., Inc. v. Horrocks, 154 Idaho 396, 299 P.3d 203 (principle that parties may not advance new theories for first time on appeal)
State v. Schulz, 151 Idaho 863, 264 P.3d 970 (statutory interpretation precedent regarding plain language and context)