State v. Manzanares
152 Idaho 410
| Idaho | 2012Background
- Idaho enacted ICGEA to address gang activity; Manzanares was charged with recruiting a gang member (18-8504(1)(a)) and supplying a firearm to a gang member (18-8505).
- Recruiting charge: knowingly soliciting, inviting, encouraging or causing another to actively participate in a criminal gang (East Side Locas) between 2006 and 2007.
- Firearm charge: knowingly supplying a firearm to a gang member known to be a member of a criminal gang.
- District court dismissed the Firearm Charge as part of a conditional Alford plea; Manzanares pleaded guilty to the Recruiting Charge in exchange for dismissal of the Firearm Charge.
- Manzanares appealed challenging the constitutionality of the Recruiting Provision, and the Firearm Provision (as applied/facial challenges), plus information and preliminary hearing sufficiency issues.
- Court held: (a) Firearm issues moot due to dismissal; (b) ex post facto challenge not properly preserved or jurisdictional; (c) Recruiting Provision not facially or as-applied overbroad under First Amendment; (d) remaining two issues (elements and evidence) not reached; (e) conditional plea reservation guidance provided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is ICGEA §18-8504(1)(a) overbroad under the First Amendment? | Manzanares asserts overbreadth by criminalizing association/expressive conduct. | Manzanares contends statute sweeps protected conduct; State argues narrowing via knowledge and active participation. | Not facially overbroad; statute narrowly targets knowing participation and active recruitment. |
| Is the Recruiting Provision unconstitutional as applied to Manzanares? | As applied, it infringes her First Amendment rights based on initiation/recruitment actions. | Record insufficient to show how applied or that conduct targeted protected activity. | As applied challenge rejected; record insufficient to prove violation of rights; conviction sustained. |
| Does the ex post facto challenge lie or warrant review? | Conviction based on pre-ICGEA conduct may violate ex post facto. | No preserved adverse ruling; issue not jurisdictional and waived by plea. | Ex post facto issue waived/preserved only if properly reserved; not properly preserved here. |
| Did information fail to enumerate all elements or was preliminary hearing evidence insufficient? | Charge lacked precise element enumeration; minimal evidence at prelim. | Record insufficient to show error; no reversible defects. | Not addressed due to ruling on Recruiting Provision; issues deemed contingent on specific intent. |
| Was Manzanares' reservation to appeal under I.C.R. 11(a)(2) proper? | Reservation expressly allowed appeal of constitutionality of charge and statute. | Language broad; court should determine scope from record and pleadings. | The reservation was sufficiently explicit to preserve facial challenges to the Recruiting Provision; guidance provided. |
Key Cases Cited
- Korsen v. State, 138 Idaho 706 (Idaho 2003) (strong presumption of validity; interpret statute to uphold constitutionality)
- Hosey v. State, 134 Idaho 883 (Idaho 2000) (contractual interpretation of plea agreements; issues reviewable as law)
- State v. Barclay, 149 Idaho 6 (Idaho 2010) (advisory opinions and mootness; limits on non-preserved issues)
- Wheeler v. Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 147 Idaho 257 (Idaho 2009) (ex post facto considerations and plea-based review; preservation standards)
- Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1984) (freedom of association: intimate vs. expressive associations; factors for protected status)
- Rotary Club of Duarte v. Rotary International, 481 U.S. 537 (U.S. 1987) (expressive association and open membership; First Amendment)
- Stanglin v. City of Dallas, 490 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1989) (dance-hall patrons not protected as association; distinction between intimate/expressive)
- Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1966) (statutes restricting membership; lack of specific intent invalid where overbroad)
- Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203 (U.S. 1961) (specific intent to advance criminal aims required to punish association; overbreadth concerns)
- Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1964) (membership in organization advocating unlawful aims; requires specific intent to advance those aims)
- United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1967) (overbreadth where membership in organization with unlawful aims punished without intent to advance those aims)