337 P.3d 639
Idaho2014Background
- On Jan. 1, 2006, a high-speed encounter on Scarcello Road involving Jonathan Ellington (in a Blazer) and the Larsen family ended with collisions that killed Vonette Larsen and injured others; Ellington was convicted of second-degree murder and two counts of aggravated battery in 2006.
- This Court previously reversed and remanded after finding that the State’s reconstruction expert (Cpl. Fred Rice) had presented perjured testimony (Ellington I), so a new trial was held.
- At the second trial the State relied on reconstruction expert John Daily to show the Blazer turned left (into the Honda and later toward Vonette) rather than merely being rotated by impact with a Subaru; Daily used rotational mechanics and a ∆v calculation to show the Subaru could not have rotated the Blazer 45°.
- After the second trial, defense expert Rochford obtained a textbook co-authored by Daily containing a passage advising against a certain type of analysis for collisions under 45°; Ellington argued this passage showed Daily used an inappropriate formula and thus constituted newly discovered, material evidence that would probably produce an acquittal.
- The district court denied Ellington’s post-trial motion for a new trial under I.C.R. 34 and I.C. § 19-2406(7), finding the textbook passage was not newly discovered material evidence but at best impeachment and could have been produced with reasonable diligence.
- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed: the textbook passage either did not address the precise calculation Daily performed, or at most impeached his methodology without providing substantive evidence that would support acquittal; therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Ellington's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-trial textbook passage is "newly discovered" evidence warranting a new trial under I.C. § 19-2406(7) | Passage is at most impeachment of expert and not material; denial proper | Passage shows Daily used wrong formula for collisions <45°, so evidence is newly discovered and material and would probably produce acquittal | Affirmed: passage not material substantive evidence; at best impeachment; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the passage undermines Daily's ∆v/rotation conclusion (i.e., that Subaru could have rotated Blazer 45°) | The textbook passage addresses impact-speed calculations, not the ∆v/speed-change analysis Daily performed | Passage demonstrates the calculation was inappropriate and undermines Daily's conclusion that rotation required an extraordinarily large ∆v | Held: textbook more plausibly addresses a different analysis; even if it showed methodological unreliability it does not affirmatively support defense theory — only impeaches Daily |
| Whether impeachment evidence that could have been discovered with diligence justifies new trial | Such impeachment cannot satisfy Drapeau materiality prong; counsel could have sought or used rebuttal at trial | Passage was not reasonably discoverable until after trial and so qualifies as newly discovered | Held: passage could have been used for impeachment and was not the kind of substantive evidence that warrants new trial; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Proper standard for reviewing denial of a new-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence | Apply abuse-of-discretion standard and Drapeau elements (new, material, probably produce acquittal, diligence) | Same | Held: abuse-of-discretion standard; district court’s findings supported — no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stevens, 146 Idaho 139 (2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard and caution in granting new trials)
- Findley v. Woodall, 86 Idaho 439 (1963) (trial judge superior position to judge fairness of trial)
- Cantwell v. City of Boise, 146 Idaho 127 (2008) (elements of abuse-of-discretion review)
- State v. Ellington, 151 Idaho 53 (2011) (Ellington I) (prior reversal for perjured testimony by State expert)
- McDaniel v. Inland Nw. Renal Care Grp.-Idaho, LLC, 144 Idaho 219 (2007) (district court evidentiary rulings reviewed for clear abuse of discretion)
- State v. Drapeau, 97 Idaho 685 (1976) (standard for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)