State v. Calver, 307 P.3d 1233

Veronica Calver aka Haney appeals a conviction for felony child custody interference under Idaho Code § 18-4506.
A JTRO was issued in the divorce case to maintain the status quo regarding minor children and restrict removal from Idaho without consent.
Veronica left Idaho with her son to Tennessee after being advised she had not properly been served, allegedly violating the JTRO.
Law enforcement notified Veronica in Utah of the JTRO and potential felony charges if she did not return the child to Idaho.
Veronica ultimately took the child to Tennessee despite those notices and was arrested on Idaho felony custodial interference charges.
At trial Veronica argued necessity to protect her or her children from imminent harm; the jury convicted and sentenced her to five years with one year determinate, suspended.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of without lawful authority	State contends JTRO violation shows acted without lawful authority.	Calver argues the JTRO did not restrict custodial rights or prove lack of authority; she had parental rights and service issues undermine proof.	There was substantial evidence Veronica violated the JTRO and acted without lawful authority.
Jury instructions correctness	State argues pattern instruction properly conveys elements; no omission of essential elements.	Calver asserts instruction allowed conviction without proving specific JTRO terms; claims fundamental error.	Instructions were not erroneous and did not amount to fundamental error.
Fatal variance between information and instructions	State required Raymond to have custodial rights; information referenced joint custody while instructions used equal custodial rights.	Any variance did not alter offense or mislead defense; not a constructive amendment.	Variance was not fatal and did not require reversal.

State v. Hoyle, 140 Idaho 679 (Idaho Ct. App. 2004) (substantial evidence standard for appellate review of sufficiency)
State v. Lawyer, 150 Idaho 170 (Ct. App. 2010) (credibility and weight not reviewed; view most favorable to the State)
Hopper v. Hopper, 144 Idaho 624 (Idaho Supreme Court 2007) (continuing custodial rights and conduct outside jurisdiction)
Wilson v. State, 133 Idaho 874 (Ct. App. 2000) (knowledge of criminal statutes presumptively; notice of consequences)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (parental rights contrasted with state interest in welfare)
State v. Reyes, 139 Idaho 502 (Ct. App. 2003) (statutory interpretation and plain meaning in review)
State v. Burnight, 132 Idaho 654 (Idaho Supreme Court 1999) (plain meaning and interpretation of statutes)
State v. Escobar, 134 Idaho 387 (Ct. App. 2000) (statutory interpretation and ambiguity analysis)