State v. John Doe, a juvenile
Background
- Defendant (Doe), age 12, charged with two counts of lewd conduct with a child under 16 (I.C. § 18-1508) for separate incidents with S.T. and M.S., both age 11.
- S.T. testified Doe forced vaginal contact and kissing in bushes; Doe admitted contact and an examining doctor testified Doe had an erection and was sexually aroused.
- M.S. testified Doe forced her onto a bed, threatened violence, pulled her pants down, and had vaginal contact; magistrate found M.S. credible despite some inconsistencies.
- Magistrate found Doe guilty on both counts; the district court affirmed on intermediate appeal; Doe appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- Doe argued (1) a consent exception should apply for similarly aged juveniles, (2) insufficient evidence of lewd intent/acts, and (3) magistrate erred by excluding his expert from observing witness testimony under I.R.E. 615.
- Court reviewed whether magistrate’s factual findings were supported by substantial competent evidence and whether discretion under I.R.E. 615 was abused.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent is a defense to I.C. § 18-1508 for similarly aged juveniles | State: consent is not required to be proved; statute applies as written | Doe: juveniles of similar age should have a consent exception | Rejected — consent is not a defense as a child under 16 cannot consent; change is for legislature |
| Sufficiency of evidence re: intent for contact with S.T. | State: doctor’s testimony and Doe’s admission support intent to gratify sexual desires | Doe: lacked requisite intent or mistake about consent negates intent | Affirmed — substantial evidence (admission, doctor testimony, erection) supports intent |
| Sufficiency of evidence re: conduct with M.S. | State: M.S.’s credible testimony and doctor observations support lewd conduct | Doe: inconsistencies in M.S.’s statements undermine proof | Affirmed — magistrate credibility finding supported by substantial evidence |
| Exclusion of defense expert from courtroom under I.R.E. 615 | State: exclusion proper to prevent shaping of testimony; expert not essential | Doe: expert needed to evaluate child-interview credibility and should observe testimony | Affirmed — exclusion within discretion; expert could not opine on credibility and presence would risk shaping testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Korn, 148 Idaho 413 (review of magistrate findings and appellate procedure)
- State v. Herr, 97 Idaho 783 (consent not a defense to lewd conduct statute)
- State v. Oar, 129 Idaho 337 (affirming rule that child under 16 cannot consent)
- State v. Hester, 114 Idaho 688 (limits on expert testimony that intrudes on credibility determinations)
- State v. Huntsman, 146 Idaho 580 (purpose of I.R.E. 615 to prevent witnesses shaping testimony)