461 P.3d 774
Idaho2020Background
- In June 2009 Eugene Red Elk was fatally injured after leaving Duffy’s Tavern; Martin Edmo Ish was investigated and ultimately charged in 2015 (amended to second-degree murder); trial occurred April 2017 and jury convicted Ish of voluntary manslaughter.
- Jury venire was drawn from Twin Falls County because of local publicity; the State used 6 of 12 peremptory strikes to remove all remaining prospective jurors who were minorities.
- Ish timely lodged a Batson challenge after the final panel was chosen (but before jurors were sworn), arguing the State excluded jurors on the basis of race; the district court denied Batson and Ish was tried and convicted.
- Pretrial, a VHS surveillance tape from Duffy’s Tavern had been destroyed in 2012 during an evidence purge; a DVD copy surfaced later. Ish moved to dismiss for spoliation and sought a spoliation jury instruction; the district court found no bad faith and refused the instruction.
- After trial Ish subpoenaed the prosecution’s voir dire notes; the district court quashed the subpoena, ruling the notes were protected work product; Ish appealed raising Batson, spoliation, and discovery issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ish) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State’s peremptory strikes violated Batson (focus on Juror 3) | Proffered race-neutral reasons (media exposure, demeanor/zoned out, hardship) and district court credited them | Reasons were pretextual (100% exclusion of minority jurors; prosecutor’s explanations inconsistent and possibly misrepresented for-cause history) | Idaho Supreme Court: district court’s finding re: Juror 3 was clearly erroneous; Batson violation as to Juror 3; conviction vacated and new trial ordered |
| Whether statistical/exclusion pattern or comparative juror analysis compels Batson relief | Exclusion of all minority jurors alone is not dispositive; court should consider proffered reasons and context | 6-of-6 strikes strongly supports discriminatory intent; side-by-side comparison would show pretext | Court: 100% exclusion is strong evidence but not conclusive; trial courts must assess proffered reasons in light of all circumstances and make findings (demeanor findings required if relied on); here overall record undermined district court’s Batson ruling |
| Whether prosecution’s voir dire notes are discoverable after trial (subpoena duces tecum) | Notes are protected work product under I.C.R. 16 and need not be produced | Notes are necessary to pursue renewed Batson/new-trial motion and should be producible | Court: voir dire notes are protected work product; quash of subpoena was proper; court did not decide waiver or in-camera review (issue not preserved) |
| Whether destruction of VHS tape was bad faith requiring dismissal or a spoliation instruction | Tape was destroyed inadvertently during large evidence purge in 2012; no bad faith shown | Destruction, procedural failures, and inconsistent testimony together show bad faith and warrant dismissal or at least a spoliation instruction allowing an adverse inference | Court: district court’s finding of no bad faith is supported by substantial competent evidence; denial of the requested instruction proper because the proposed instruction misstated law (would permit inference from mere negligence) |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits race-based peremptory challenges)
- Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228 (reinforces vigorous enforcement of Batson; one discriminatory strike is one too many)
- Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (trial-court demeanor findings are critical; unexplained credibility determinations may be clearly erroneous)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (persuasiveness of prosecutor’s justification at Batson step three is dispositive; comparative evidence relevant)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (side-by-side comparisons can be more powerful than raw statistics in showing pretext)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (Batson step two requires only a race-neutral explanation, not a persuasive one)
- Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (three-step Batson framework and role of trial judge)
- Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (defendant of any race may bring Batson challenge)
- Foster v. Chatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737 (prosecutor file can contain decisive evidence of discriminatory intent)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (when destroyed evidence is of unknown value, defendant must show bad faith)
- State v. Araiza, 124 Idaho 82 (Idaho discussion of Batson framework)
- Paradis v. State, 110 Idaho 534 (Idaho test for spoliation in criminal cases)
- Courtney v. Big O Tires, Inc., 139 Idaho 821 (spoliation inference requires bad faith; negligence insufficient)