State v. Bernal, 427 P.3d 1

Bernal and his ex-partner Carmen had a confrontation after Bernal followed her; a vehicle collision occurred on Granger Ave., and later Bernal approached Carmen’s home armed with a knife where Gustavo (Carmen’s brother) struck Bernal with a bat and testified Bernal lunged and threatened him.
Bernal was charged by information with: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, reckless driving, leaving the scene of an accident, and a weapons sentencing enhancement (charged as a separate count).
At trial Bernal did not object to jury instructions; he argued at closing that he did not have a knife, Gustavo was the aggressor, and that testimony about where reckless driving occurred was disputed.
Jury instructions referenced a broader public-highway location for reckless driving and allowed conviction under either assault-by-attempt or assault-by-threat theories; the information alleged reckless driving on Five Mile Road and assault by attempting to stab Gustavo with a knife.
The jury convicted Bernal on all counts (including the enhancement); Bernal appealed raising (1) fatal variances between the information and jury instructions and (2) prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Variance between information and reckless-driving instruction	State: Instruction properly stated law; evidence showed reckless driving on public roads	Bernal: Instruction expanded theory from Five Mile Road to any public highway (e.g., Granger Ave.), prejudicing defense	Court: Variance existed but not fatal because information separately charged leaving-the-scene on Granger Ave., so Bernal had notice and defended that theory
Variance between information and assault instructions	State: Instruction matched assault law; attempt to stab implies threat theory too	Bernal: Instruction invited conviction on assault-by-threat not charged (information alleged attempt to stab)	Court: Variance existed but not fatal; allegation of attempted stabbing put defendant on notice that assault-by-threat was possible
Prosecutorial misconduct — arguing both assault theories	State: Prosecutor accurately argued reasonable inferences from instruction and evidence	Bernal: Prosecutor improperly expanded theories and relied on non-record facts	Court: No misconduct; prosecutor argued permissible inferences and matched instructions/evidence
Prosecutorial misconduct — vouching for witnesses	State: Prosecutor responded to defense impeachment and drew reasonable inferences about witness credibility	Bernal: Prosecutor impermissibly vouched and appealed to juror prejudice	Court: No misconduct; statements were reasonable inferences or fair responses, not improper vouching

Perry v. State, 150 Idaho 209 (2010) (standard for reviewing unobjected-to constitutional errors and fundamental-error test)
Windsor v. State, 110 Idaho 410 (1985) (notice requirement and when variance is prejudicial)
Folk v. State, 151 Idaho 327 (2011) (variance fatal where instruction permits conviction on uncharged crimes)
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) (notice purpose: prevent surprise and guard against double jeopardy)
Gas v. State, 161 Idaho 588 (Ct. App. 2016) (two-step variance analysis: existence and prejudicial/fatal inquiry)
Abdullah v. State, 158 Idaho 386 (2016) (prosecutorial misconduct standard: verdict must be based only on law, instructions, and admitted evidence)