State v. John Kim Baker
Background
- At ~12:03 a.m. on March 31, 2015, Ada County deputies located a vehicle driven by John Kim Baker matching a suspect in an aggravated-assault report; a high-speed pursuit in Ada County followed, with speeds of 110–120 mph, and the pursuit was terminated at 12:19 a.m.
- Elmore County deputies were alerted and briefly posted at I-84 exits but did not engage; they resumed normal patrols around 1:00 a.m.
- At ~2:30 a.m., Elmore County dispatch located Baker on I-84; an Elmore County sergeant activated lights, Baker fled at low speed, spike strips disabled his car, and Baker was arrested.
- Baker pled guilty to misdemeanor eluding in Elmore County the day of his arrest and was sentenced to 60 days.
- The State later charged Baker with felony eluding for the earlier Ada County high-speed pursuit (I.C. § 49-1404(2)); Baker moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, arguing the prosecutions were for the same continuous offense.
- The district court denied dismissal; Baker pleaded guilty to the felony while preserving the double jeopardy issue on appeal. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Baker) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecuting misdemeanor eluding (Elmore) and felony eluding (Ada) imposes multiple punishments for the same offense in violation of double jeopardy | The two prosecutions arise from one continuous course of conduct; Baker never ceased eluding and had a single intent/objective | The incidents were separate, distinct offenses: the Ada chase ended when pursuit was terminated; later Elmore pursuit began after a significant break and independent officer action | Charges are separate and independent; no double jeopardy violation; denial of dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Santana, 135 Idaho 58, 14 P.3d 378 (Ct. App. 2000) (standard of review for double jeopardy questions of law)
- Schiro v. Farley, 510 U.S. 222 (1994) (Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple punishments for the same offense)
- State v. McKeeth, 136 Idaho 619, 38 P.3d 1275 (Ct. App. 2001) (double jeopardy protections summarized)
- State v. Moad, 156 Idaho 654, 330 P.3d 400 (Ct. App. 2014) (Idaho test for whether a course of conduct constitutes separate crimes—consider intent and objective)
- State v. Major, 111 Idaho 410, 725 P.2d 115 (1986) (test for separate, distinct, and independent crimes)
- State v. Bush, 131 Idaho 22, 951 P.2d 1249 (1997) (consideration of actor's intent and objective in determining separateness)