State v. Grist, 275 P.3d 12

Grist was first convicted in 2006 of ten counts, including seven lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, one sexual abuse of a child under sixteen, and two sexual battery counts.
On retrial in 2009, Grist was again found guilty of all ten counts and received life-equivalent overall sentencing with a 25-year minimum; on remand the court imposed different terms than initially.
The victim, J.M.O., and her family resided with Grist; the alleged abuse began when J.M.O. was around ten years old and continued through high school.
At retrial, Grist attempted to impeach a state witness (J.M.O.'s brother) with the witness’s recently obtained felony theft conviction; the district court refused.
Grist challenged the increased determinate portion of his sentence as vindictive in light of his successful appeal, arguing due process violations.
The district court’s record showed limited post-sentencing conduct by Grist, and it increased the determinate portion by ten years after retrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the theft conviction impeachment was erroneously excluded	Grist argues the theft conviction is probative of credibility.	Grist contends the district court abused its discretion by excluding it on prudential grounds.	No abuse; impeachment value was minimally relevant and outweighed by prejudice.
Whether vindictive sentencing violated due process after retrial	Grist asserts the second sentence was punitive for exercising rights and violated Pearce.	State argues Perry standards govern preservation and review and/or no obvious vindictiveness.	Vindictive sentencing violated due process; remand to modify sentences to original fifteen-year determinate term.
Whether the court erred in applying Perry's three-prong test to preserve a vindictive-sentencing claim	Grist relies on Perry to challenge any unwaived due process error on appeal.	State contends contemporaneous objection was needed or plain-error review should apply.	Perry satisfied; defendant preserved through the Pearce framework and rights were violated.

State v. Bush, 131 Idaho 22 (1997) (two-prong Rule 609(a) testing of impeachment evidence)
State v. Raudebaugh, 124 Idaho 758 (1993) (relevancy is a question of law reviewed de novo)
State v. Atkinson, 124 Idaho 816 (1993) (case-specific credibility impacts of prior felonies)
State v. Ybarra, 102 Idaho 573 (1981) (categorization of felonies by probative value for credibility)
State v. Allen, 113 Idaho 676 (Ct.App.1987) (case-by-case relevance of prior felonies to credibility)
State v. Muraco, 132 Idaho 130 (1998) (category-based analysis for credibility relevance)
State v. Rodgers, 119 Idaho 1066 (Ct.App.1990) (factors weighing probative value against prejudice in impeachment)
State v. Regester, 106 Idaho 296 (Ct.App.1984) (vindictive sentencing requires demonstrating intent to punish exercising rights)
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) (vindictiveness presumed after successful appeal; reasons must appear on record)
Stedtfeld v. State, 114 Idaho 273 (Ct.App.1988) (requires showing vindictiveness or intent to punish after remand)
State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (2010) (three-prong Perry test for unwaived constitutional rights on appeal)
United States v. Vontsteen, 950 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir.1992) (contemporaneous objection requirement for Pearce-based claims)
United States v. Pearce, North Carolina v. Pearce (1969) (vindictiveness standard for remand sentencing)