State v/ Justin Lynn McCallum
Background
- Justin McCallum pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting delivery of a controlled substance and received a suspended unified 4-year sentence (1 year determinate) with probation. While on probation he was charged with sexual offenses involving a 13-year-old and evidence-destruction.
- Separate prosecutions: Docket No. 43701 (probation revocation for drug delivery conviction) and Docket No. 43738 (trial convictions for felony lewd conduct with a minor under 16 and destruction of evidence). Cases consolidated on appeal.
- At the lewd-conduct trial the State admitted ~61 text messages exchanged between McCallum and the minor; McCallum had factory-reset his phone and admitted deleting messages.
- Jury convicted McCallum of felony lewd conduct and felony destruction of evidence; court imposed concurrent sentences (25 years unified, 5 years determinate for lewd conduct; 5 years determinate for destruction). I.C.R. 35 reduction motion denied.
- On probation revocation for the prior drug conviction, McCallum admitted violating probation based on the new convictions; the district court revoked probation and executed the underlying 4-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McCallum) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion revoking probation | Probation was violated by new criminal conduct; revocation/execution appropriate | Revocation was an abuse of discretion | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion in revocation/execution |
| Sufficiency of evidence for felony destruction of evidence under I.C. § 18-2603 | Underlying investigation (lewd conduct with minor) was a felony, so destruction was felony | State failed to prove the investigation involved a felony; no evidence presented that underlying offense was a felony | Reversed as to felony count; conviction vacated and remanded for misdemeanor destruction sentencing (felony element not proved beyond reasonable doubt) |
| Admissibility of text messages (I.R.E. 404(b)) | Messages relevant to motive, intent, relationship, and to destruction charge; probative value outweighs prejudice | Many messages irrelevant and unduly prejudicial; admission abused discretion | Admission proper: certain messages relevant to lewd conduct and all were relevant to destruction charge; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; any error would be harmless |
| Sentence length and denial of I.C.R. 35 relief | Sentences within discretion; denial of reduction appropriate | Sentences excessive; I.C.R. 35 should have reduced sentence | Affirmed — sentencing and denial of I.C.R. 35 motion were not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Yermola, 159 Idaho 785 (Idaho 2016) (the State must submit to the jury and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the investigated offense is a felony when charging felony destruction/concealment of evidence)
- State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho 324 (Ct. App. 1992) (trial court discretion to revoke probation upon violation)
- State v. Grist, 147 Idaho 49 (Idaho 2009) (I.R.E. 404(b) framework: other-acts admissibility and limiting propensity use)
- State v. Pokorney, 149 Idaho 459 (Ct. App. 2010) (evidence of attempts to alter/destroy evidence probative of consciousness of guilt)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error standard: State must show error did not contribute to verdict)