State v. Leotis B. Branigh, III
155 Idaho 404
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2013Background
- On Oct. 1, 2007 Michael Johnston was shot and killed outside his Lewiston, Idaho home; eyewitnesses reported the shooter was in a white Camaro.
- Victim Johnston and his ex-wife Desiree Anderson had exchanged texts with defendant Leotis Branigh III; Anderson’s phone and Sprint-produced records contained threatening messages from Branigh immediately before the shooting.
- Idaho officers obtained a warrant from a Nez Perce County magistrate and faxed it to Sprint (Kansas) to obtain Branigh’s cell-site/contact logs and text-content; Sprint produced records and Branigh moved to suppress them. The district court initially granted suppression but reversed on reconsideration.
- At trial Branigh (self-represented with standby counsel) objected to admission of Sprint records, Anderson’s phone texts, and three ER photos; objections were overruled and the jury convicted him of first-degree murder.
- Postconviction Branigh sought a new trial, alleging the prosecutor suppressed impeachment information about jailhouse informant Stephen Peak (Brady violation) and that Peak’s testimony understated his relationship with Sheriff Dorion (perjury). The district court found suppression occurred but denied a new trial as the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
- On appeal the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed: it held Branigh had Idaho-constitutional privacy interests in the records, the out-of-state warrant violation of I.C.R. 41(a) did not require suppression, evidentiary rulings were proper (or not preserved), prosecutorial misconduct/Brady violations were harmless given the strength of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Branigh) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of Sprint records: magistrate jurisdiction/Rule 41 compliance | Warrant satisfied probable cause; Rule 41 territorial violation is procedural and does not invalidate a warrant that meets constitutional standards | Magistrate exceeded jurisdiction under former I.C.R. 41(a) by issuing warrant for property located in Kansas, so warrant was void and records must be suppressed | Magistrate had subject-matter jurisdiction; Rule 41 violation was a procedural error not a constitutional defect; suppression not required |
| Privacy/standing in phone data (logs vs. text content) | No reasonable expectation of privacy in third-party business records (federal line: Miller/Smith) | Branigh asserts Idaho constitutional protection extends to telephone logs and text contents | Court: Under Idaho Constitution (Thompson) telephone logs are protected; text-message content also protected under Idaho Constitution; Branigh had standing |
| Admissibility of cell-phone texts (I.R.E. 404(b), foundation, hearsay etc.) | Texts were relevant and admissible; foundation established | Broad 404(b) objections lacked particularity and were not preserved for appeal; other foundational objections were addressed at trial | Admission upheld; 404(b) objections not preserved because defendant failed to specify offending messages |
| Admission of ER photographs (I.R.E. 403) | Photographs were probative to show manner/extent of injury and corroborate medical testimony | Photographs were cumulative and unfairly prejudicial since cause of death was undisputed | Photographs admissible; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (facts not in evidence re: GSR) | Comments were permissible argument about reliability of gunshot residue evidence; no contemporaneous objection | Prosecutor asserted facts not in evidence (e.g., FBI/state labs no longer test GSR), and failed to correct false testimony | Misconduct occurred (placing facts not in evidence) but review was for fundamental error; error held harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt |
| Brady / new-trial claim and use of (allegedly) perjured testimony by Peak | Withheld impeachment information was not material to outcome; even if suppressed, evidence of guilt was overwhelming | Prosecutor suppressed impeachment info about Peak’s close relationship with Sheriff Dorion; new evidence would have impeached Peak and affected verdict | Court found Brady violation (suppression) but suppression/new-trial not warranted because suppressed evidence was not material under Brady standard; perjured-testimony claim similarly harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (warrantless searches unreasonable absent exception)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (no Fourth Amendment privacy in third-party business records)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (pen-register/phone-number disclosures not protected under Fourth Amendment)
- State v. Thompson, 114 Idaho 746 (Idaho Supreme Court recognizing privacy interest in dialed phone numbers under Idaho Constitution)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor must disclose favorable, material evidence)
- Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (warrant need not specify precise manner of execution; procedural errors not per se constitutional)
- United States v. Berkos, 543 F.3d 392 (violation of procedural rule for warrants does not automatically require exclusion if probable cause and judicial approval exist)
- United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (privacy interest in content stored with third-party service may exist)