State v. James W. Clark, 161 Idaho 372

In August 2012 and again in August 2013 the Idaho Industrial Commission director sent James Clark written notices barring him from Commission property for one year because of prior confrontations; Clark admitted receiving the 2012 letter and disputed receiving the 2013 letter, though video evidence suggested he did.
On April 4, 2014 Clark entered the Commission’s Boise office; receptionist Barbara Fox (who testified she was authorized to ask people to leave) showed him the trespass letters and told him to leave; Clark refused and Fox activated an alarm; police arrived and Clark was later charged with misdemeanor trespass under I.C. § 18-7008(8).
At the close of the State’s case Clark moved for judgment of acquittal (I.C.R. 29), arguing the notices were not issued by authorized agents and that the trespass order violated his due process/right to petition; the magistrate denied the motion and a jury convicted Clark.
The district court, sitting in appellate capacity, affirmed the conviction; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the Rule 29 motion should have been granted; the State sought review to the Idaho Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined (1) whether the State produced sufficient evidence to sustain the trespass conviction (authorization and notice issues) and (2) whether Clark’s due process/First Amendment rights were implicated by the trespass notices.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of Rule 29 (judgment of acquittal) was erroneous	State: evidence showed authorized agents notified Clark and he refused to leave; sufficient for conviction	Clark: State failed to prove notices were issued by authorized agents and thus evidence was insufficient	Affirmed: viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational jury could find an authorized verbal request to leave and Clark’s refusal beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether trespass notices violated due process / right to petition	State: no as-applied constitutional defect shown; statute not aimed at regulating speech and Clark did not attempt to exercise First Amendment rights in a protected way	Clark: notices deprived him of a process to challenge exclusion and infringed his right to petition/government redress	Held: No due process or First Amendment violation shown; Clark sought remedial court relief rather than protected speech and failed to demonstrate the statute was unconstitutional as applied

State v. Korsen, 138 Idaho 706 (Idaho 2003) (Idaho trespass statute not unconstitutionally vague and as-applied First Amendment challenge requires showing impingement of protected conduct)
State v. Pentico, 151 Idaho 906 (Ct. App. 2011) (as-applied analysis: trespass prosecution punished nonexpressive entry, not speech)
Pentico v. State, 159 Idaho 350 (Ct. App. 2015) (post-conviction reiteration that trespass conviction punished entry, not petitioning conduct)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review: whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)