State v. Hadden
271 P.3d 1227
Idaho Ct. App.2012Background
- Hadden charged in January 2009 with grand theft of approximately twenty calves owned by Steven Bilbao; winter 2008 disappearance at a cattle ranch near Shoshone.
- Motion for change of venue denied; district court again denied request during jury selection; pretrial publicity tied to unrelated charges against Hadden.
- Trial evidence included Keppner, who testified about the loading of cattle and the resulting check; Ramey purchased the cattle and could not positively identify Hadden; a brand inspector likewise could not identify her with certainty.
- Hadden’s son testified to a plan to steal cattle and to receiving money; he admitted inconsistencies and immunity for truthful testimony.
- In closing, Hadden argued to disregard Keppner’s and her son’s testimony due to contradictions; verdict: guilty of grand theft under Idaho law.
- Appeal contested jury instruction on impeachment and venue denial; the appellate court affirmed, ruling no fundamental error and no presumption of prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the jury instruction on impeached witnesses plain error? | Hadden contends the instruction unduly restricted weighing credibility. | Hadden argues the instruction improperly limits disregard of uncorroborated testimony. | Not plain error; Perry standard not satisfied; no reversal on this ground. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying change of venue? | Hadden asserts presumptive prejudice due to rural county and extensive prior publicity. | Hadden maintains no fair trial in Lincoln County; publicity was prejudicial. | No presumption of prejudice; venue denial affirmed; trial not fundamentally unfair. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (2010 Idaho Supreme Court) (three-prong fundamental error test for unwaived claims)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain error requires clear, obvious error)
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) (presumption of prejudice reserved for extreme cases; multi-factor analysis)
- State v. Hall, 727 P.2d 1255 (1982 Idaho Supreme Court) (extensive voir dire; publicity largely factual; trial held after delay)
- State v. Needs, 591 P.2d 130 (1979 Idaho Supreme Court) (agravating factors for venue analysis; extensive publicity analyzed)
- State v. Yager, 85 P.3d 656 (2009 Idaho Supreme Court) (pretrial publicity and voir dire; no automatic venue change)