State v. Carey
152 Idaho 720
Idaho Ct. App.2012Background
- Carey was convicted of failure to register as a sex offender under Idaho Code §§ 18-8309, 18-8311.
- The district court sentenced Carey to a unified term of ten years with a minimum confinement of three years to run concurrently with a prior sentence.
- Carey challenged the sentence as excessive and argued the district court failed to rule on or redline objections to portions of the presentence investigation report (PSI).
- Rule of evidence does not apply to a PSI; hearsay may be considered if reliable and subject to defendant rebuttal or cross-examination.
- Carey sought redaction of certain PSI statements to which he objected or disputed, contending they were unreliable or inaccurate.
- The court found no reversible error in the district court’s handling of the PSI and affirmed the sentence after reviewing for reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court err by not redlining disputed PSI content? | Carey argues disputed statements should have been redlined. | Carey contends the court should strike or redline unreliable statements. | No abuse; no requirement to redline disputed statements. |
| Was the PSI handling of disputed statements erroneous? | Carey contends the PSI included unreliable or speculative assertions. | The PSI included rebuttals and sources, allowing independent reliability assessment. | No error; court could rely on PSI with rebuttals and cross-examination opportunities. |
| Is Carey's sentence excessive given the record? | Carey claims the sentence is excessive for the offense. | The district court has discretion; standard of review supports reasonableness. | Sentence affirmed as not abusive or unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mauro, 121 Idaho 178 (1991) (unreliable or speculative PSI content may be stricken if not explained)
- State v. Rodriguez, 132 Idaho 261 (Ct.App.1998) (redline reasonable when excluding unreliable PSI information; cross-examination available)
- State v. Molen, 148 Idaho 950 (Ct.App.2010) (unreliable PSI information should be stricken to avoid prejudice)
- State v. Viehweg, 127 Idaho 87 (Ct.App.1995) (hearsay in PSI may be included if reliable and rebutted)
- Cunningham v. State, 117 Idaho 428 (Ct.App.1990) (sentencing review standards and discretion)
- State v. Eubank, 114 Idaho 635 (Ct.App.1988) (hearsay statements and reliability considerations in PSI)