State v. Brandon Briggs, 162 Idaho 736

Brandon Briggs was charged in consolidated prosecutions (2014 and 2015) with multiple counts of lewd conduct, sexual abuse of minors, and one count of enticing a child via the Internet; jury convicted on all counts and the court imposed concurrent lengthy sentences.
Briggs moved in limine under Idaho Rule of Evidence 412 to admit evidence of the alleged victims’ sexual activity with others, arguing it showed motive to lie and that victims accused Briggs to protect other perpetrators.
At the motion hearing Briggs cited I.R.E. 412(b)(2)(D) (sexual behavior with parties other than the accused at the time of the event) as the basis for admission; the district court excluded the evidence, reasoning consent was not at issue because victims were minors.
Briggs did not assert a constitutional right to cross-examine under the Sixth Amendment or invoke I.R.E. 412(b)(1) before the trial court; he raised a constitutional confrontation argument for the first time on appeal.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: (1) Briggs’s trial counsel’s failure to assert a different evidentiary or constitutional basis at trial was not an "unobjected-to" error under Perry; (2) even if Perry applied, Briggs could not meet the Perry prongs because the trial dispute was evidentiary and not a demonstrated constitutional violation; (3) appellate review is limited to arguments presented below, so Briggs’s new Sixth Amendment/I.R.E. 412(b)(1) claim was not considered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Briggs)	Held
Whether exclusion of victims’ sexual history constituted unobjected-to/fundamental error	Exclusion was a garden-variety evidentiary ruling; no preserved constitutional error	Exclusion denied his right to present evidence and to confront witnesses; counsel’s failure to assert constitutional basis constitutes unobjected-to error	Not unobjected-to error; trial counsel did assert a specific basis (412(b)(2)(D)) and failed to propose a different basis is not the same as failing to object; affirmed
Whether exclusion violated Sixth Amendment confrontation right / I.R.E. 412(b)(1)	Not raised below; the issue is forfeited and not preserved for appeal	Confrontation clause required admission/cross-examination about victims’ sexual activity (raised on appeal)	Not considered — Briggs did not present this constitutional claim at trial, so appellate court declines to address it
Whether fundamental error review under Perry applies and is satisfied	Perry applies only to true unobjected-to errors that are constitutional, obvious on the record, and case-dispositive	Perry review applies because counsel failed to raise constitutional argument at trial; error was clear and affected outcome	Even if Perry applied, Briggs cannot satisfy first prong: this was an evidentiary rule dispute, not an established constitutional violation; Perry relief denied

State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 245 P.3d 961 (Idaho 2010) (establishes three-prong test for reversing unobjected-to error: unwaived constitutional violation, obvious on record, and affected outcome)
State v. Jackson, 151 Idaho 376, 256 P.3d 784 (Idaho Ct. App. 2011) (refuses to equate evidentiary-rule violations with automatic constitutional due-process error under Perry)
State v. Norton, 134 Idaho 875, 11 P.3d 494 (Idaho Ct. App. 2000) (must state specific grounds to preserve objection for appeal)
State v. Cannady, 137 Idaho 67, 44 P.3d 1122 (Idaho 2002) (objection basis must be apparent from context to preserve issue)
State v. Garcia-Rodriguez, 162 Idaho 271, 396 P.3d 700 (Idaho 2017) (reinforces appellate review limits to theories and arguments presented below)