State v. Domingo Jesus Diaz, 158 Idaho 629

Background

Diaz was convicted of battery with intent to commit rape and assault with intent to commit rape in Idaho.
Diaz moved to sever the two counts; the district court denied the motion after a hearing.
The state sought and obtained Rule 404(b) evidence of other acts to connect the counts for admissibility.
The jury found Diaz guilty on both counts and the district court imposed a unified ten-year minimum on the battery count plus a consecutive fifteen-year indeterminate term for the assault.
Diaz challenges the denial of severance, the admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence, and the sentences as excessive.
The appellate court affirmed, upholding the evidentiary rulings and the sentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was severance appropriate?	Diaz asserts unfair prejudice from joinder of counts.	Diaz argues joinder caused prejudice by mixing evidence relevant to each count.	No abuse; severance not required.
Is Rule 404(b) evidence admissible to connect the counts for identity, intent, or common plan?	Diaz contends evidence is impermissible propensity evidence.	State asserts evidence is relevant to intent, identity, and plan.	Evidence admissible for multiple permissible purposes; probative value outweighs prejudice.
Were the sentences within the statutory range and not an abuse of discretion?	Diaz claims mitigating factors were undervalued and sentences excessive.	Court properly weighed factors and protections of society; high risk to reoffend supports sentence.	No abuse; sentences affirmed within statutory limits.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Field, 144 Idaho 559, 165 P.3d 273 (2007) (joinder and severance discretion standards)
State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 768 P.2d 1333 (1989) (multitiered abuse-of-discretion review for trial decisions)
State v. Eguilior, 137 Idaho 903, 55 P.3d 896 (Ct. App. 2002) (test for prejudice in severance rulings)
State v. Cirelli, 115 Idaho 732, 769 P.2d 609 (Ct. App. 1989) (purposes for Rule 404(b) admissibility when evaluating prejudice)
State v. Abel, 104 Idaho 865, 664 P.2d 772 (1983) (rule 404(b) relevance framework for separate trials)
State v. Grist, 147 Idaho 49, 205 P.3d 1185 (2009) (probative value versus unfair prejudice under Rule 404(b))
State v. Parmer, 147 Idaho 210, 207 P.3d 186 (Ct. App. 2009) (deferring to trial court on Rule 404(b) determinations)
State v. Stevens, 146 Idaho 139, 191 P.3d 217 (2008) (relevance standard under I.R.E. 401)
State v. Raudebaugh, 124 Idaho 758, 864 P.2d 596 (1993) (relevance de novo; Rule 404(b) evaluation)
State v. Aguilar, 154 Idaho 201, 296 P.3d 407 (Ct. App. 2012) (non-propensity purposes under Rule 404(b))
State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 825 P.2d 482 (1992) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing)
State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (1982) (primary objective of protecting society in sentencing)
State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 653 P.2d 1183 (Ct. App. 1982) (abuse-of-discretion review in sentencing factors)
State v. Hunnel, 125 Idaho 623, 873 P.2d 877 (1994) (societal protection as primary sentencing consideration)
State v. Pederson, 124 Idaho 179, 857 P.2d 658 (Ct. App. 1993) (factors in sentencing within statutory framework)