State v. Fordyce
151 Idaho 868
Idaho Ct. App.2011Background
- Fordyce was convicted of felony domestic violence and a persistent violator enhancement after beating his live-in girlfriend.
- Evidence showed significant facial injuries and a hospital-based positive test indicating possible pregnancy.
- Fordyce objected to testimony about the victim’s possible pregnancy; the district court admitted the pregnancy test result.
- The victim later recanted her statements blaming Fordyce; the State presented an expert on why DV victims recant or minimize.
- Defense objections to the expert’s testimony were rejected; the jury returned a guilty verdict.
- On appeal, Fordyce challenged the evidentiary rulings concerning the pregnancy evidence and the expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 403 balancing of pregnancy evidence | Fordyce: district court failed to balance probative value against prejudice. | Fordyce: evidence unfairly prejudicial; potential miscarriage inference. | District court did not err; no shown unfair prejudice. |
| Admission of domestic violence expert testimony | State's expert explained DV dynamics to aid understanding of recantation. | Testimony irrelevant to guilt and should have been excluded under Rule 404/403. | Evidence admissible; arguments unpreserved or meritless. |
| Preservation of error for expert testimony | Objections were timely and properly preserved. | No timely objection to some portions; error not preserved. | No reversible error; objections not properly preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ruiz, 150 Idaho 469 (2010) (require Rule 403 balancing when excluding motive-based evidence)
- State v. Pokorney, 149 Idaho 459 (Ct.App.2010) (unfair prejudice standard; probative value vs prejudice)
- State v. Floyd, 125 Idaho 651 (Ct.App.1994) (unfair prejudice not present merely because evidence harms defense)
- State v. O'Bryan, 96 Idaho 548 (1975) (timely objections required to preserve evidentiary review)
- State v. Enyeart, 123 Idaho 452 (Ct.App.1993) (preservation and specific grounds for objections)
- Norton v. State, 134 Idaho 875 (Ct.App.2000) (proper preservation of objections per Rule 103(a)(1))