State v. Ingraham, 528 P.3d 966

Background

Late-night traffic stop (Jan 6, 2020) revealed marijuana and methamphetamine; Ingraham was observed attempting to destroy meth in the patrol car and later found with drug paraphernalia. She was charged with meth possession, marijuana possession, possession of drug paraphernalia, destruction of evidence, and grand theft by possession of stolen property.
Ingraham had a 2004 felony meth possession plea that was later reduced/“deemed” a misdemeanor pursuant to Idaho Code § 19-2604, by an amended judgment entered nunc pro tunc to July 11, 2006 shortly before the 2020 trial.
Jury selection occurred in a county fairgrounds exhibit hall and the trial used social‑distancing measures and a YouTube broadcast option due to COVID; the court limited in‑person seating but did not close the proceedings, and Ingraham raised only a mask-related voir dire objection.
Three police videos were admitted; technical problems prevented playback of Exhibit 13 during trial, the jury asked to see it, and the court reconvened briefly during deliberations so the jury could view the admitted exhibit with counsel and court present.
The jury convicted on all counts and found Ingraham had at least two prior felony convictions for persistent‑violator enhancement; the district court imposed concurrent 15‑year sentences (five years fixed) and Ingraham appealed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Ingraham's Argument	Held
Whether COVID‑era seating/YouTube measures and holding voir dire at a fairgrounds closed the trial to the public (public‑trial claim).	Measures were reasonable COVID accommodations; court remained accessible (virtual + limited in‑person); no one was denied access.	The modified procedures effectively closed the trial and deprived her of the Sixth Amendment and Idaho Constitution public‑trial rights.	Court: No violation; Ingraham failed to preserve a constitutional objection and record shows the trial was not closed.
Whether publishing admitted Exhibit 13 to the jury after deliberations began was unfair/reopened the trial.	Publication was permitted under Crim. R. 24.1 and court discretion (Weigle); both parties had sought the jury to view the exhibit.	Timing during deliberations unduly emphasized the exhibit and violated due process.	Court: No error; publication was within discretion and, at most, invited by defense’s request—no due process violation.
Whether a prior felony that was “deemed” a misdemeanor under I.C. § 19‑2604 can be counted as a felony for persistent‑violator enhancement (I.C. § 19‑2514).	The prior felony remains a conviction for enhancement purposes (Brandt/Reed precedent cited by trial court).	§ 19‑2604’s plain language deems the conviction a misdemeanor; it could not be used to enhance under § 19‑2514.	Court: It was error to use the 2004 conviction; when deemed a misdemeanor under § 19‑2604, it cannot be counted for § 19‑2514 enhancement. Sentencing remanded.
Whether Ingraham waived appellate review of procedural/closure claims by failing to object and/or failed to invoke fundamental‑error standard in opening brief.	Objections not raised below; appellate review limited to fundamental error; defendant also failed to brief fundamental‑error standard properly.	Argued constitutional error and structural error requiring automatic reversal.	Court: Claims not preserved; defendant failed to show fundamental error and also failed to raise it properly on appeal, so those challenges fail.

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings and custodial‑interrogation principles cited in factual background)
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (test for closing court to the public applies where a party objects)
Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017) (public‑trial violations characterized as structural error)
State v. Brandt, 110 Idaho 341 (Idaho Ct. App. 1986) (prior guilty plea treated as a conviction for persistent‑violator purposes)
State v. Reed, 149 Idaho 901 (Idaho Ct. App. 2010) (interpretation of enhancement statutes and interplay with § 19‑2604 discussed)
State v. Weigle, 165 Idaho 482 (2019) (trial court discretion to provide demonstrative exhibits to jury during deliberations)
State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (2010) (fundamental‑error doctrine and three‑part test for reviewing unpreserved constitutional errors)
State v. Owens, 158 Idaho 1 (2015) (retroactivity/Teague analysis for new criminal procedural rules)