State v. David G. Conner
Background
- Oregon officer stopped Conner for speeding, learned Conner had a suspended California license, issued a citation, and videotaped the stop.
- The Oregon officer contacted Idaho State Police after Conner said he intended to drive into Idaho; this information prompted Idaho officers to stop Conner in Idaho.
- During the Idaho stop a K-9 alerted to the trunk; officers opened it and found six sealed bags containing over five pounds of marijuana.
- Conner was charged with trafficking in five pounds or more of marijuana; he moved to suppress and objected at trial to admission of the Oregon stop video and evidence he was driving without privileges.
- The district court admitted the Oregon video and testimony about the suspended license over Conner’s objections, the jury convicted, and Conner appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the Oregon stop evidence was relevant and admissible as res gestae (not improper 404(b) propensity evidence), not unduly prejudicial under I.R.E. 403, and any error would have been harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of Oregon stop/video | State: video and officer testimony explain how Idaho officers learned license was suspended and provide context for Idaho stop | Conner: video and Oregon stop are background only and irrelevant to marijuana trafficking charge | Admitted — evidence relevant to how Idaho stop occurred and to credibility/context (I.R.E. 401) |
| Admissibility under Rule 404(b) / res gestae | State: evidence is part of the continuous events (res gestae) explaining officers’ conduct, not propensity evidence | Conner: evidence of driving without privileges is other-act evidence showing bad character and should be excluded absent 404(b) analysis | Admitted — treated as res gestae; sufficiently interconnected and necessary for a complete account of events, so not barred as propensity evidence |
| Undue prejudice (I.R.E. 403) | State: probative value high—explains justification for stop and impeachment issues; court limited extraneous content | Conner: testimony/video unfairly portrayed him as dishonest and disrespectful of law, outweighing probative value | Not unduly prejudicial — trial court conducted balancing and reasonably found probative value outweighed any unfair prejudice |
| Harmlessness of any error | State: independent, strong evidence of possession/weight (K-9, officers’ observations, chemist test) makes any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Conner: admission of Oregon-stop evidence may have improperly influenced jury and cannot be shown harmless | Harmless — even if erroneous, overwhelming direct evidence of >5 lbs marijuana shows error did not contribute to verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stevens, 146 Idaho 139 (general relevance standard for criminal evidence)
- State v. Grist, 147 Idaho 49 (standards for 404(b) admissibility and balancing)
- State v. Izatt, 96 Idaho 667 (res gestae exception; admissibility of interconnected uncharged acts)
- Davidson v. Beco Corp., 114 Idaho 107 (I.R.E. 403 balancing framework)
- State v. Rhoades, 119 Idaho 594 (definition and application of unfair prejudice)
- State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (harmless error and structural-error principles)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (harmless-error review guidance)