State v. Howard
150 Idaho 471
| Idaho | 2011Background
- Howard was convicted of DUI in California (2004) and in Idaho (2003) and the State sought to enhance the misdemeanor DUI to a felony under I.C. § 18-8005(5) based on two prior DUI convictions within ten years.
- At trial, the California judgment and the Idaho judgment were offered to prove the enhancement; the California judgment lacked 9-312/1738 compliance but was admitted under I.R.E. 902(4).
- The district court admitted both judgments under the Idaho Rules of Evidence but ruled the California judgment did not satisfy 9-312/1738, and thus found Howard not guilty of the enhancement.
- The State appealed; the Court of Appeals dismissed as barred by double jeopardy; the Idaho Supreme Court granted review to resolve admissibility and double jeopardy issues.
- The Idaho Supreme Court held that a conviction can be admitted and proved under the I.R.E. without satisfying 9-312 or 28 U.S.C. § 1738, but double jeopardy bars a new conviction on the felony enhancement.
- Consequently, Howard cannot be convicted of the felony DUI enhancement, because retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, although the California judgment may be admitted via I.R.E. standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a prior conviction need 9-312/1738 proof when admitted under the I.R.E.? | State contends California judgment suffices if it meets I.R.E. authentication. | Howard contends 9-312/1738 are mandatory to prove a prior conviction for enhancement. | A judgment may be admitted under I.R.E. 902(4) without 9-312/1738. |
| Does the district court's acquittal on the enhancement trigger double jeopardy preventing retry? | State argues no acquittal; retrial permissible if merits show guilt. | Howard argues the district court's acquittal bars retrial under double jeopardy. | Yes, the district court's acquittal triggers double jeopardy protection. |
| Can Howard be retried on the felony DUI enhancement if double jeopardy applies? | State maintains retrial could proceed if new findings support guilt. | Howard asserts retrial would violate double jeopardy because no valid verdict of guilt exists. | Retrial is barred by double jeopardy; no general verdict of guilt exists to reinstate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Prince v. State, 64 Idaho 343 (1942) (set forth authentication standards prior to I.R.E.; discussed faith and credit implications)
- State v. Zimmerman, 121 Idaho 971, 829 P.2d 861 (1992) (adopted I.R.E. 902(4) over statutory rules; authentication governs admissibility)
- Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140 (1986) (double jeopardy limits on post-acquittal proceedings)
- State v. Korsen, 138 Idaho 706, 69 P.3d 126 (2003) (distinguishes acquittal when additional elements are not essential)
- Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462 (2005) (precludes prosecution appeal after jury acquittal unless general finding of guilt exists)
- United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977) (acquittal's validity governs double jeopardy applicability)
- United States v. Jenkins, 420 U.S. 358 (1975) (bench trial guilt findings and retrial implications under double jeopardy)
- Lee v. United States, 432 U.S. 23 (1977) (statements of guilt not equivalent to general verdict)
- Finch v. United States, 433 U.S. 676 (1977) (absence of formal verdict of guilt bars appeal in some contexts)