State v. Bryann Kristine Lemmons, 354 P.3d 1186

Defendant Lemmons was convicted by jury of two counts of trafficking by delivering methamphetamine and two counts by conspiring to deliver methamphetamine.
Two deliveries occurred on Oct. 25, 2011 and Dec. 6, 2011 with a confidential informant present.
Actual weights were under 28 grams, but informant testified that Defendant represented the weight as one ounce in both purchases.
State sought to use a 28.35-gram per ounce standard via judicial notice; the district court refused to take judicial notice.
District court later granted a new trial on the weight-representation issue and conspiracy counts; on appeal, court held the order void for lack of jurisdiction and reviewed the merits de novo.
Case ultimately reversed the order granting a new trial and remanded for sentencing on all four trafficking charges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s post-judgment order granting a new trial was void for lack of jurisdiction.	State contends the district court properly granted a new trial.	Lemmons contends the order is void as the court lacked jurisdiction after notice of appeal.	Order void; district court lost jurisdiction and could not grant a new trial.
Whether there was sufficient evidence that Lemmons represented the weight as 28 grams or more to sustain trafficking convictions.	State argues testimony that one ounce was represented suffices to prove 28+ grams.	Lemmons argues no reliable conversion rate was proved and the weight representation was inadequate.	There was sufficient evidence; conviction upheld and new trial denied.
Whether the court properly refused an informant-credibility instruction requested by Lemmons.	N/A; State argues instruction not required.	Requested instruction on informants is needed to guard credibility.	Instruction given adequately covered credibility issues; no error.
Whether prosecutorial comments during trial and closing violated due process to require a new trial.	N/A; State contends comments did not substantially affect outcome.	Comments were misleading and could prejudice the jury.	No fundamental error; substantial rights not shown to be violated.

State v. Suriner, 154 Idaho 81 (2013) (direct appellate review of Court of Appeals decision)
Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) (retrial after acquittal barred by double jeopardy)
Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (1998) (double jeopardy protection governs successive prosecutions)
Perry v. State, 150 Idaho 209 (2010) (plain error standard for unwaived constitutional rights in closing)
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (prosecutorial misconduct standard for due process)
White v. White, 94 Idaho 26 (1971) (judicial notice of statutes language proper across jurisdictions)
Lewiston v. Frary, 91 Idaho 322 (1966) (judicial notice of municipal ordinances reserved for legal notice)
State v. Tiffany, 139 Idaho 909 (2004) (instruction sufficiency; credibility and judging witness)
Poe, 139 Idaho 885 (2004) (standard for interpreting trial evidence and instruction)
Carson, 151 Idaho 713 (2011) (analysis of closing arguments and due process)