State v. Jeske, 164 Idaho 862

Background

On Jan 12–13, 2016, Jeske was stopped for a headlight defect; officer observed signs of impairment, Jeske refused field sobriety and breath tests, and was silent when asked to consent to a blood draw; a magistrate-issued warrant authorized a blood draw that returned .182 BAC.
State charged Jeske with felony DUI based on impairment; initial charging papers did not mention the blood-test results; State received blood results Feb 24 and disclosed them to defense that day.
On the morning of trial (June 6, 2016) the State moved to amend the Information to add a per se (.08+) theory; the district court granted the amendment and trial proceeded the same day.
At trial the court admitted (1) testimony/video including Jeske’s refusals (including silence to the warrantless blood request) and (2) a comment and video showing Jeske lacked a driver’s license; the court refused a defense-requested jury instruction phrased to require impairment be "noticeable or perceptible."
Jury convicted Jeske of DUI; the district court found felony status based on prior DUIs; Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed; Idaho Supreme Court granted review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Jeske)	Held
Whether prosecutor/comment and evidence about refusal to consent to a warrantless blood draw violated Fourth Amendment	Conceded comment on exercise of constitutional right is improper but argued any error was harmless and defense failed to preserve specific objection	Commenting on invocation/refusal of a Fourth Amendment right is unconstitutional; trial court erred in admitting/commenting on refusal	Assuming constitutional error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given uncontested .182 BAC evidence; no reversal
Whether district court abused discretion by permitting amendment of Information on trial day	Amendment added an alternate theory (per se) not a new offense; defense had the blood results months earlier, so no prejudice	Late amendment deprived Jeske of notice, preparation, and a preliminary hearing on the new theory	No abuse of discretion: per se and impairment are alternate means of same DUI offense; defendant knew blood results and was not prejudiced
Whether trial court erred by refusing defense’s requested jury instruction requiring impairment be "noticeable or perceptible"	Given ICJI correctly states law; requested language not required and is adequately covered by given instruction	Requested wording more accurate/clear and should have been given	Denial not error: requested instruction was either redundant or adequately covered by the given instruction
Whether admission of testimony about lack of driver’s license (uncharged misconduct) was improper	Evidence relevant to identification, behavior, and probable cause; not prejudicial	Admission was uncharged misconduct; should have been analyzed under I.R.E. 404(b) and excluded	Admission under a res gestae rationale was error under later Idaho precedent, but any error was harmless given overwhelming BAC evidence

Key Cases Cited

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (recognizes constitutional protection against warrantless blood draws)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (blood draw is a Fourth Amendment search)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)
State v. Wulff, 157 Idaho 416 (Idaho precedent treating blood draws and related Fourth Amendment issues)
State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (adoption of Chapman harmless-error test in Idaho)
State v. Severson, 147 Idaho 694 (standard and discretion for amending informations)
State v. Kralovec, 161 Idaho 569 (admissibility/res gestae discussion and correct application of evidence rules)