State v. Jorge A. Lopez-Orozco, 360 P.3d 1056

In 2002 a burned car with remains of Rebecca Almarez and her two young sons was found; the car belonged to Jorge Lopez-Orozco (Defendant). Defendant fled to Mexico and was extradited in 2011.
Jose Lopez-Orozco (José), Defendant's brother, told San Jose police in 2002 (and signed a written statement in 2009) that he overheard Defendant confess to killing Almarez and the children and burning the car.
At the 2011 preliminary hearing José testified and the magistrate admitted his written statement under the recorded-recollection exception.
At the 2012 trial José testified he had no memory of the events, his 2002 statements, or his 2011 testimony. The State sought to read José’s preliminary-hearing testimony under the former-testimony exception (I.R.E. 804(b)(1)) and to read his 2009 written statement as a recorded recollection (I.R.E. 803(5)).
The district court declared José unavailable, allowed portions of his preliminary-hearing testimony read to the jury, and allowed his signed written statement to be read under the recorded-recollection rule. Defendant objected and appealed.
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting both statements under the cited hearsay exceptions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred declaring José unavailable and admitting his preliminary-hearing testimony under the former-testimony hearsay exception (I.R.E. 804(b)(1))	State: José testified at trial he lacked memory of the subject matter; Defendant had an adequate prior opportunity and motive to cross-examine at the preliminary hearing	Defendant: José merely lacked memory of making prior statements (not the subject matter); State’s inquiry insufficient to prove lack of memory	Court: Affirmed—substantial evidence José lacked memory of the subject matter; defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine; admission proper under I.R.E. 804(b)(1)
Whether district court erred admitting José’s unsigned/unsworn 2009 written statement as a recorded recollection (I.R.E. 803(5))	State: Statement was made/adopted by José when matter was fresh and reflected his knowledge; José testified it accurately reflected what he remembered in 2009	Defendant: Statement unreliable—unsworn, prepared by others, long delay between events and writing, not properly adopted	Court: Affirmed—trial testimony supported adoption, freshness, and accuracy for Rule 803(5); admission for reading to jury was not an abuse of discretion

State v. Robinett, 141 Idaho 110 (discretion in evidentiary rulings)
State v. Watkins, 148 Idaho 418 (standards for admitting hearsay under exceptions)
State v. Bingham, 116 Idaho 415 (preservation requirement for appellate review)
Obenchain v. McAlvain Constr., Inc., 143 Idaho 56 (no new arguments on appeal)
State v. Joy, 155 Idaho 1 (hearsay definition and inadmissibility absent exception)
State v. Higgins, 122 Idaho 590 (application of recorded-recollection rule)
State v. Fair, 156 Idaho 431 (Ct. App.) (unavailability for lack of memory under Rule 804(a)(3))
State v. Richardson, 156 Idaho 524 (standard for factual findings on unavailability)