State v. Juan L. Juarez, 313 P.3d 777

Juarez was charged with DUI under Idaho Code § 18-8004(1)(a); the charge was enhanced to a felony under I.C. § 18-8005(6) based on two prior out-of-state DUI convictions (Nevada and California) within ten years.
Juarez pleaded guilty to misdemeanor DUI but reserved a trial on the felony-enhancement question; he challenged only the Nevada prior as not "substantially conforming."
The district court ruled Nevada Revised Statute § 484.379 (now § 484C.110) was substantially conforming and proceeded to a bench trial on the enhancement.
The district court found Juarez guilty of felony DUI, imposed a unified 5-year sentence (3 years determinate), then suspended and placed him on probation.
On appeal Juarez argued two main differences: (1) Nevada criminalizes a BAC of .08 within two hours after driving (even if below .08 at the time of driving), and (2) Nevada allows prosecution despite a post-arrest reliable test under .08, whereas Idaho generally bars prosecution when a reliable test shows < .08.
The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory construction de novo and applied prior Idaho precedent (Schmoll, Moore) focusing on whether the foreign statute prohibits the same essential conduct (driving while under the influence).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nevada's DUI statute is a "substantially conforming foreign criminal violation" under I.C. § 18-8005(6) and (10)	State: Nevada's statute criminalizes the same essential conduct as Idaho (driving while under the influence); any differences (e.g., 2-hour window) are procedural or impose higher burdens on the State.	Juarez: Nevada criminalizes conduct Idaho does not (BAC within 2 hours) and lacks Idaho's implied prohibition on prosecuting when a reliable test shows < .08, so it is not substantially conforming.	Affirmed: Nevada's statute is substantially conforming; differences do not prevent enhancement under § 18-8005(6).

State v. Schmoll, 144 Idaho 800 (Ct. App. 2007) (framework: compare statutory elements; focus on prohibited conduct rather than precise wording)
State v. Moore, 148 Idaho 887 (Ct. App. 2010) (applies Schmoll; substantial conformity does not require exact match)
State v. O’Neill, 118 Idaho 244 (1990) (standard of appellate review for statutory questions)
State v. Robinett, 141 Idaho 110 (2005) (holding per se prosecution focuses on BAC at time of test; no requirement to extrapolate to time of driving)
Elias-Cruz v. Idaho Dep’t of Transp., 153 Idaho 200 (2012) (citing Robinett on test-time BAC)
State v. Stutliff, 97 Idaho 523 (1976) (time lapse before testing affects weight of results)