State v. Jackson
151 Idaho 376
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Jackson was convicted of two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor under 16 based on alleged acts against his niece (K.W.) that allegedly occurred 16 years earlier.
- The charges were filed in 2008, with the alleged abuse dating from circa 1992.
- K.W. reported in 2007 after hearing a news broadcast about Jackson’s alleged crimes and contacting authorities.
- Before trial, Jackson sought to exclude references to his other alleged crimes and related news reports under Rule 404(b); the court allowed limited questioning, but the prosecutor later referenced the news broadcast in opening and closing statements.
- Jackson did not object to the prosecutor’s conduct at trial, and he timely appealed on grounds of alleged prosecutorial misconduct and violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 404(b) and related news-report references violated fundamental error standards | Jackson asserts misconduct under 404(b) and due process violation | State contends no constitutional error; Perry standard not met | No fundamental error; evidentiary rule violation not a constitutional error and not plain error under Perry |
| Whether vouching by a lay witness violated a constitutional right | Jackson contends mother's belief in victim’s credibility infringes rights | State argues no constitutional basis for exclusion; not fundamental error | Not fundamental error; no reasonable possibility of affecting outcome; not a constitutional violation under 608/701/702 claims |
| Whether prosecutorial closing referred to defendant’s failure to testify in violation of Griffin | Jackson claims indirect comment on silence violated Fifth Amendment | State contends rebuttal context and defense framing negate Griffin violation | Not fundamental error; rebuttal context insulated; no plain error under Perry |
| Whether Perry fundamental error standard was properly applied to these claims | Jackson seeks broader fundamental error review for evidentiary issues | State argues Perry requires constitutional violation and plain error; not satisfied here | Perry applied; no unwaived constitutional violation; no outcome-altering error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 245 P.3d 961 (Idaho Supreme Court 2010) (redefines fundamental error review for unwaived claims, requiring constitutional violation, plain error, and harm to substantial rights)
- State v. Cannady, 137 Idaho 67, 44 P.3d 1122 (Idaho Supreme Court 2002) (evidentiary errors, including 404(b), generally not subject to fundamental error review)
- State v. Moore, 131 Idaho 814, 965 P.2d 174 (Idaho Supreme Court 1998) (evidentiary rulings not typically reviewed as fundamental error)
- State v. Evans, 129 Idaho 758, 932 P.2d 881 (Idaho Supreme Court 1997) (admission of evidence reviewed under standard evidentiary rules rather than fundamental error)
- State v. Davis, 127 Idaho 62, 896 P.2d 970 (Idaho Supreme Court 1995) (limits on fundamental error review for evidentiary issues)