State v. Folk
151 Idaho 327
| Idaho | 2011Background
- Mother found Folk with Child on Child's bed; both were fully clothed and claimed they were playing, no visible sexual act.
- Child later told Mother that Folk put his mouth on Child's penis; police investigated and charges of lewd conduct by oral-genital contact were filed January 9, 2008.
- Folk was arrested, arraigned February 6, 2008; retained counsel withdrew, public defender appointed, and Folk elected to represent himself with standby counsel.
- Pretrial and trial settings shifted; Folk moved to represent himself; trial ultimately held with cross-examination by standby counsel and Child testimony via closed circuit TV.
- Folk was convicted of lewd conduct and sentenced to life in prison without parole; on appeal, the judgment was vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the State violate the speedy-trial right (statutory)? | Folk | Folk | Postponement by Folk's request waives statutory protection; no dismissal required |
| Did the State violate the constitutional speedy-trial right? | Folk | Folk | No violation under four-factor balancing; delays justified and not prejudicial |
| Did the district court deprive Folk of the right to confront the accuser? | Folk | Folk | District court infringed by restricting cross-examination; Confrontation violated |
| Did the court err by requiring Folk to write questions for cross-examination and have standby counsel read them? | Folk | Folk | Yes; interference with self-representation; standby role improper |
| Did the jury instruction incorrectly permit conviction for conduct not constituting lewd conduct? | Folk | Folk | Instruction error; possible convicting of non-charged conduct; vacate verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1975) (right to self-representation and control of defense)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1984) (standby counsel should not destroy pro se defendant's control)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1990) (child-testimony privileges and closed-circuit testing under certain conditions)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1972) (four-factor speedy-trial analysis)
- State v. Hooper, 176 P.3d 911 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2007) (Confrontation and cross-examination considerations in Idaho)
- State v. Young, 29 P.3d 949 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2001) ( Idaho constitutional speedy-trial framework)
- State v. Holtslander, 629 P.2d 702 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1981) (delay as triggering mechanism in speedy-trial analysis)