State v. Marcos Apollo Jimenez, 160 Idaho 540

Background

In Sept. 2013 Marcos Jimenez (44) was caring for his girlfriend’s 17‑year‑old daughter (mental capacity ~10); he digitally penetrated her and later partially penetrated her with his penis. Jimenez pled guilty to sexual battery; rape charge dismissed.
District court ordered a psychosexual evaluation (including polygraph) and advised Jimenez of his Fifth Amendment right to refuse. He refused.
At sentencing the court repeatedly explained that, without an evaluation, it would have to rely on the case facts and could not assess risk/amenability to treatment. The court said it could assume a risk to community but would not base sentence on an adverse inference.
The court imposed 18 years (3 fixed + 15 indeterminate), fines, and lifetime sex‑offender registration. Jimenez appealed, arguing the court drew adverse inferences from his refusal to submit to the evaluation, violating the Fifth Amendment.
The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed, finding the record does not show the court drew impermissible adverse inferences from Jimenez’s silence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court violated Fifth Amendment by drawing adverse inference from refusal to undergo psychosexual evaluation	State: court may consider absence of evaluation and rely on case facts to protect community; no impermissible inference	Jimenez: sentencing court penalized him for exercising Fifth Amendment right by inferring guilt/risk from his refusal	Held: No Fifth Amendment violation — court noted lack of evidence but did not base sentence on adverse inference from silence
Whether court used refusal to infer facts of the offense (e.g., rape)	State: factual findings based on victim statement and PSR, not defendant’s silence	Jimenez: refusal prevented him from contesting factual allegations and court penalized him	Held: Court relied on victim’s account/PSR and plea; no indication sentence rested on adverse factual inference from silence
Whether absence of psychosexual evaluation justified harsher sentence based on public‑safety concern	State: protection of society is a primary sentencing objective; lack of evaluation legitimately limits assessment of rehabilitation	Jimenez: invoking public‑safety rationale effectively punishes silence	Held: Court permissibly considered lack of evaluation as lack of mitigating evidence and prioritized protection of community without penalizing silence
Whether Mitchell v. United States controls to bar using silence at sentencing to determine offense facts	Defendant relied on Mitchell to show silence was impermissibly held against him	State argued sentencing relied on independent record evidence, not silence	Held: Mitchell distinguished — here court’s facts came from PSR and plea, not adverse inference from silence; Mitchell does not mandate reversal

Key Cases Cited

Estrada v. State, 143 Idaho 558, 149 P.3d 833 (Idaho 2006) (defendant has right not to participate in psychosexual evaluation)
Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999) (court impermissible to hold defendant’s silence against her when determining offense facts at sentencing)
State v. Carver, 155 Idaho 489, 314 P.3d 171 (Idaho 2013) (sentencing objectives include protection of society, deterrence, rehabilitation, punishment)
State v. Calley, 140 Idaho 663, 99 P.3d 616 (Idaho 2004) (primary sentencing objective is protection of society)
State v. Suriner, 154 Idaho 81, 294 P.3d 1093 (Idaho 2013) (appellate review posture: Supreme Court hears cases anew on petition for review)