State v. Hill, 161 Idaho 444

Background

On Jan. 10, 2014 deputies stopped Jonathan Hill for driving without taillights; deputies observed odor of alcohol and bloodshot/glassy eyes. Hill performed three field sobriety tests (HGN, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand) on a snowy, downhill roadway while wearing heavy clothing. Deputy Smith administered the tests and observed vertical nystagmus and failures on the other tests. Hill refused a breath test and was arrested for DUI.
At trial Deputy Smith, over a hearsay objection, testified that he was "taught in the academy" that vertical nystagmus generally indicates a BAC over .10. No video of the tests existed. Sergeant Martin corroborated odor and bloodshot eyes but did not administer FSTs.
The prosecutor relied on Deputy Smith’s academy-derived statement in closing argument to connect vertical nystagmus to a BAC over .10. Hill objected at trial to the testimony but did not object during closing argument.
A jury convicted Hill of felony DUI and found a prior felony DUI; Hill appealed. The Court of Appeals found admission of the testimony was erroneous but harmless; Hill petitioned to the Idaho Supreme Court.
The Idaho Supreme Court held the academy statement was hearsay, improperly disclosed under I.R.E. 703 without a balancing finding, the trial court abused its discretion, and the State failed to prove the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction was vacated and the case remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Deputy Smith’s testimony about academy instruction linking vertical nystagmus to a BAC > .10 was admissible	State: testimony was non-hearsay background/context or, alternatively, admissible under expert-basis rule (I.R.E. 703)	Hill: testimony is out-of-court statement offered for its truth and thus hearsay; disclosure of basis violated Rule 703 absent court balancing	The statement was hearsay and admission without Rule 703 balancing was an abuse of discretion
Whether the trial court correctly applied Rule 703 when an expert relies on inadmissible facts	State: expert may rely on such matter and may disclose it	Hill: Rule 703 permits reliance but prohibits disclosure unless probative value substantially outweighs prejudice	Even assuming Smith was an expert, disclosure required a court finding that probative value substantially outweighed prejudice; no such finding was made
Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	State: error was harmless (as argued below)	Hill: objected at trial; State must prove harmlessness beyond reasonable doubt	State failed to carry burden on appeal (did not address harmlessness); error not shown harmless; reversal required
Whether prosecutorial remark in closing constituted fundamental error	State: no fundamental error	Hill: prosecutor relied on inadmissible evidence to bolster case	Court did not resolve separately because evidentiary error was dispositive; conviction vacated on evidentiary ground

Key Cases Cited

State v. Watkins, 148 Idaho 418 (discussion of appellate review of Court of Appeals decisions)
Mattoon v. Blades, 145 Idaho 634 (same court-review context)
State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (harmless error standard adopting Chapman)
State v. Gleason, 123 Idaho 62 (standard for abuse of discretion in admitting evidence)
Sun Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87 (three-part abuse-of-discretion framework)
State v. Moore, 131 Idaho 814 (de novo review of evidentiary rule interpretation)
State v. Seigel, 137 Idaho 538 (out-of-court statement used for context — not hearsay)
State v. Davis, 155 Idaho 216 (relevance depends on truth — hearsay analysis)
State v. Garrett, 119 Idaho 878 (police may be qualified as HGN experts)
State v. Robinett, 141 Idaho 110 (use of numerical BAC evidence and need for foundation)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless-error standard)
State v. Almaraz, 154 Idaho 584 (State’s burden on harmless error and briefing)