State v. Gary L. Schall
157 Idaho 488
| Idaho | 2014Background
- Schall was arrested for DUI under Idaho Code § 18-8004(1)(a) with two prior DUI convictions within ten years (Idaho and Wyoming).
- The State sought to enhance the current DUI to a felony under Idaho § 18-8005(6) based on prior convictions or substantially conforming foreign convictions.
- At the preliminary hearing, records of conviction were admitted; Schall moved to dismiss, arguing Wyoming’s statute did not substantially conform to Idaho’s.
- The magistrate bound Schall over; the district court denied the dismissal, finding Wyoming conformed; Schall appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed.
- This Court granted review to decide whether the district court erred in denying dismissal for lack of probable cause that Wyoming’s statute substantially conformed.
- The Court held that § 18-8005(6) is an enhancement, not a separate offense, so no preliminary-showing of conformity was required; predicates must be proven beyond reasonable doubt at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the State need probable cause at the preliminary hearing that Wyoming DUI conforms to Idaho’s? | Schall: Wyoming statute must substantially conform as an element. | Schall: WY statute conformity is a predicate for enhancement; must be shown early. | No; predicates are not required at prelim; enhancement is not a separate offense. |
| Is Idaho § 18-8005(6) a separate offense or an enhancement to § 18-8004? | Schall contends it creates a distinct offense with prior convictions as elements. | State argues it is an enhancement, not a new crime. | Enhancement; not a separate offense. |
| What burden remains for the State at trial regarding the predicates of the enhancement? | N/A | N/A | State must prove predicates beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnight, 132 Idaho 654 (Idaho Supreme Court 1999) (enhancement predicates; not a new offense; sentencing enhancement)
- State v. Holder, 49 Idaho 514 (Idaho Supreme Court 1930) (statutory enhancement treated as punishment increase, not a separate crime)
- In re Bates, 63 Idaho 748 (Idaho Supreme Court 1942) (third conviction enhances punishment, not creation of new offense)
- Salazar, 95 Idaho 650 (Idaho Supreme Court 1973) (persistent violator; enhancement doctrine; burden at sentencing phase)
- State v. Miller, 151 Idaho 828 (Idaho Supreme Court 2011) (requires clear statement of felonies relied upon for enhancement; best practice noted)
- State v. Howard, 150 Idaho 471 (Idaho Supreme Court 2011) (discussed regarding elements of enhancement and double jeopardy; not controlling)