State v. Ellington
151 Idaho 53
Idaho2011Background
- Ellington was convicted of two counts of aggravated battery and one count of second-degree murder; the district court denied a post-trial motion for new trial and the judgment was filed December 14, 2006.
- The Idaho Supreme Court granted a new trial due to newly discovered evidence that the State’s sole rebuttal witness, Corporal Fred Rice, testified falsely at trial.
- The new-trial order centered on Rice’s inconsistent testimony and alleged perjury, which related to the defense’s theory that Ellington could not have intended to kill Mrs. Larsen.
- Trial included prosecutorial misconduct and evidentiary errors; the court ultimately vacated the convictions and remanded for a new trial on the basis of the new-trial ruling.
- The incident began January 1, 2006, with a high-speed pursuit and collision between Ellington’s Blazer and the Larsen defendants’ Subaru, culminating in Mrs. Larsen’s death.
- The outcome: Ellington’s conviction and sentence were vacated and the case remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct during trial | Ellington; misconduct affected verdict | Ellington; errors warrant reversal | New trial granted on new-trial basis (not solely misconduct) |
| Admissibility and handling of evidence | Improper admission of homicide label; expert opinion | Evidence properly contested; no reversible error | Some evidentiary errors found but resolved by new-trial grant; ultimate remedy is new trial |
| Biased or unfavorable voir dire | Three biased jurors tainted panel | Jurors impaneled impartial; no due-process violation | No due-process violation; mistrial not required |
| Harmless-error and cumulative-error assessments | Errors cumulatively deprived Ellington of fair trial | Isolated errors; no reversible error absent new trial | Cumulative-error analysis deferred to the new-trial ruling; not dispositive here |
| New-trial standard and newly discovered evidence | Rice’s inconsistent testimony was newly discovered | Rice’s testimony material and possibly perjurious; warrants new trial | District court abused discretion; new trial granted; conviction vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (Idaho 2010) (harmless-error standard for prosecutorial misconduct if not causing reversible error)
- State v. Moore, 131 Idaho 814 (Idaho 1998) (custody-based right to silence; post-arrest silence cannot imply guilt in case-in-chief)
- State v. Field, 144 Idaho 559 (Idaho 2007) (considerations of fair trial; admissibility of prosecutorial conduct in trial context)
- State v. Winn, 121 Idaho 850 (Idaho 1992) (balancing probative value and prejudice under IRE 403; inflammatory evidence admissible if probative)
- Warren v. Sharp, 139 Idaho 599 (Idaho 2003) (accident reconstruction testimony; expert conclusions must be grounded in evidence, not juror inference)