State v. Darol Keith Anderson, 162 Idaho 610

On Sept. 6–7, 2014, Erica Messerly reported that her husband, Darol Anderson, assaulted her (choking, punches, knife/pipe threats, biting); police observed cuts, bruises, and bite marks and took witness statements.
Anderson was charged with felony domestic battery, aggravated assault counts, attempted strangulation, and misdemeanor domestic battery; preliminary hearing occurred Feb. 3, 2015, at which Messerly testified (with breaks) and was cross‑examined.
Messerly entered Kootenai Behavioral Health on June 19, 2015 and was diagnosed with PTSD and Substance Use Disorder; the State moved in limine to declare her unavailable and to admit her preliminary‑hearing transcript.
The district court, relying on a psychiatrist’s affidavit and KBH staff testimony, found Messerly unavailable due to her fragile mental state and allowed her prior testimony to be read at trial.
At trial Officer Mortensen testified about injuries he observed and repeatedly stated those injuries were “consistent” with Messerly’s account; Anderson objected as impermissible vouching.
Jury convicted Anderson of felony domestic battery (Sept. 6) and misdemeanor domestic battery (Sept. 7); on appeal the Idaho Supreme Court vacated the felony conviction (prelim. testimony improperly admitted) and affirmed the misdemeanor; it also upheld admission of Officer Mortensen’s testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Anderson)	Held
Whether preliminary‑hearing testimony was admissible when the declarant was diagnosed with PTSD and SUD	Messerly’s mental condition made her unavailable; expert and KBH testimony supported exclusion and admission of transcript	Mental illness was not so severe as to render Messerly unavailable; no proof of impaired memory, refusal to testify, or risk of permanent harm	Court held admission was error: State failed to prove unavailability due to mental illness; felony conviction vacated
Whether officer testimony that observed injuries were “consistent” with victim’s account was improper vouching	Officer described physical injuries and opined those injuries could be caused by alleged acts—proper factual consistency testimony	Officer’s repeated use of “consistent” impermissibly vouched for Messerly’s credibility, usurping the jury’s role	Court held no abuse of discretion: describing factual consistency of injuries is not the same as opining on witness truthfulness; admission affirmed

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial statements include prior testimony before a grand jury or preliminary hearing)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial out‑of‑court statements unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (constitutional error harmless only if harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
Burns v. Clusen, 798 F.2d 931 (7th Cir.) (mental illness may render witness unavailable; court must assess severity and reasonable efforts to procure testimony)
Warren v. U.S., 436 A.2d 821 (D.C. Ct. App.) (extreme psychiatric risk can justify declaring a witness unavailable)
State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (prosecutorial vouching and impermissible witness credibility opinion)
State v. Ehrlick, 158 Idaho 900 (expert testimony opining on credibility of another witness is error)
State v. Richardson, 156 Idaho 524 (examples of admitting prior testimony when unavailability proven)