487 P.3d 350
Idaho2021Background:
- Victim L.H., age 5, alleged repeated sexual abuse by her mother's then-steppartner Justin Anderson; she testified to specific acts and that Anderson showed her pornographic images and photographed her.
- Months later police seized Anderson’s phone, laptop, external drive, and flash drives from his van; forensic exam revealed tens of thousands of suspected child‑pornography files, including multiple images of L.H.
- State filed two indictments (initial charges including L.H.-related counts, publication, and possession counts; later indictment added additional counts for images of L.H.); the cases were consolidated but Anderson reserved right to move to sever.
- Anderson moved to sever; the district court denied severance and admitted various pieces of evidence under I.R.E. 404(b) (number of uncharged files, sexualized drawings, Tumblr/SecurePad data, search history), and gave a shortened jury deliberation instruction omitting the final paragraph of I.C.J.I. 204.
- Jury convicted on all counts; on appeal the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed denial of severance, held the district court abused its discretion by admitting multiple 404(b) items without performing a Rule 403 balancing test, upheld the modified jury instruction, found the Rule 404(b) errors cumulative and not harmless, vacated the convictions, and remanded for a new trial.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Anderson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder under I.C.R. 8(a) (common scheme/plan) | Charges connected: porn possession/publication tied to abuse of L.H.; images of L.H. stored near other CP supports common scheme | Joinder improper—offenses not part of same scheme; joinder unfairly prejudicial | Joinder proper: record and allegations show a common scheme (possession/publication integral to abuse of L.H.) |
| Severance under I.C.R. 14 (prejudice to defense) | No unfair prejudice; evidence could be admissible in separate trials; State would have put in 404(b) evidence anyway | Joint trial risked confusion, hampered defenses (accusation-coaching and third‑party access to devices), and invited propensity inference | No abuse of discretion denying severance; defenses were presented and evidence could be admissible for non‑propensity purposes |
| Admission of I.R.E. 404(b) evidence | Evidence showed motive/plan/knowledge (e.g., volume of CP, drawings, SecurePad, Tumblr searches) and was relevant | Evidence used for impermissible propensity inference; court failed to perform required Rule 403 balancing before admitting items | Abused discretion: district court found relevance but failed to conduct required Rule 403 balancing for multiple 404(b) items; admissions reversed |
| Jury deliberation instruction (omitted final paragraph of I.C.J.I. 204) | Modified instruction was not misleading or coercive; adequate overall | Omission resembled disapproved "dynamite" instruction and risked pressuring jurors to abandon honest views | No reversible error: instructions as a whole were adequate and not coercive |
| Harmless / cumulative error | Any errors harmless given overwhelming evidence | Multiple 404(b) errors cumulatively deprived due process | Errors not harmless; inability to review unperformed Rule 403 balancing and volume of improper 404(b) evidence required vacatur and remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nava, 166 Idaho 884 (Idaho 2020) (two-step joinder/severance review and considering record beyond pleadings)
- State v. Grist, 147 Idaho 49 (Idaho 2009) (two‑tier I.R.E. 404(b) analysis requiring relevance and Rule 403 balancing)
- State v. Abel, 104 Idaho 865 (Idaho 1983) (sources of prejudice warranting severance)
- State v. Johnson, 148 Idaho 664 (Idaho 2009) (common scheme/plan standard for sexual‑abuse cases)
- State v. Ruiz, 150 Idaho 469 (Idaho 2011) (failure to conduct Rule 403 balancing may require reversal)
- State v. Flint, 114 Idaho 806 (Idaho 1988) (dynamite jury instruction doctrine)