State v. Martin C. Cardoza, 318 P.3d 658

In May 2011 an informant cooperating with Idaho police arranged a pound-for-pound methamphetamine delivery in Nampa; police arrested two drivers in a mall parking lot: defendant Martin Cardenas Cardoza (driving a green GMC Yukon) and his uncle (driving a red Mazda).
A pound of methamphetamine was found partially hidden on the Yukon’s floor; a search in Oregon of a vehicle registered to Cardoza (a white pickup) yielded over one pound of methamphetamine.
The State charged Cardoza with aiding and abetting trafficking in methamphetamine (over 400 grams) by delivery or possession under I.C. §§ 37-2732B(a)(4) and 18-204.
Before trial the State sought admission under I.R.E. 404(b) of: (1) informant testimony about Cardoza’s prior drug transports and modus operandi (using his own vehicle to transport drugs from California but delivering in borrowed Idaho-plated vehicles, including the green Yukon); and (2) evidence of the methamphetamine found in Cardoza’s Oregon pickup.
The district court admitted the evidence, reasoning it was relevant to Cardoza’s knowledge and control of the drugs in the Yukon and that probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; a jury convicted Cardoza.
On appeal Cardoza challenged the 404(b) ruling; the State cross-appealed the district court’s refusal to award restitution for the prosecutor’s salary under I.C. § 37-2732(k).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under I.R.E. 404(b) of prior drug-transport testimony and evidence of drugs found in Cardoza’s Oregon truck	State: prior acts and Oregon drugs are provative of knowledge and control (material elements), not propensity; sufficient evidence supports their occurrence; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice	Cardoza: evidence was propensity evidence, insufficiently shown on record, and unfairly prejudicial so should be excluded	Affirmed: evidence admissible — prior acts and Oregon drugs relevant to knowledge/control; court did not abuse discretion on balancing and no requirement to make a record finding on occurrence when not contested below
Restitution for prosecutor’s salary under I.C. § 37-2732(k)	State: statute authorizes restitution for costs incurred by prosecuting attorney offices and expressly includes prosecution expenses and regular salaries of employees	Cardoza: restitution for prosecutor salary is not authorized by statute and creates unsound public policy/incentives	Reversed in part: district court erred to deny requested restitution; statute unambiguously includes regular salaries as recoverable costs; remanded to exercise discretion on amount

State v. Parmer, 147 Idaho 210 (Ct. App. 2009) (discusses admissibility framework for uncharged acts under Rule 404(b))
State v. Grist, 147 Idaho 49 (2009) (establishes steps for 404(b) analysis: occurrence, relevance, and prejudice balancing)
State v. Blake, 133 Idaho 237 (1999) (elements of possession: knowledge and control)
State v. Pullin, 152 Idaho 82 (Ct. App. 2011) (evidence of other drugs in vehicle relevant to knowledge of drugs in another location)
State v. Mosqueda, 150 Idaho 830 (Ct. App. 2010) (construction of § 37-2732(k) permitting reimbursement of varied investigative/prosecution costs)
Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Regional Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889 (2011) (statutory interpretation principles: apply plain language even if results are arguably unwise)