State v. Norton
151 Idaho 176
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Norton bought a Pierce, Idaho house in Jan. 2009, insured for a total policy value including structure and personal property.
- Fire on April 8, 2009 led investigators to conclude arson with accelerant likely used and a bed-based ignition; scene suggested deliberate setting.
- Norton initially blamed her husband for the fire; Safeco investigator and sheriff questioned Norton repeatedly about her role and Stacy’s involvement.
- Stacy eventually confessed to starting the fire at Norton’s request; Norton was charged with arson in the first degree, conspiracy to commit arson, and insurance fraud.
- The district court convicted Norton on all charges and imposed a unified sentence of five years with 1.5 years determinate.
- Norton appeals, challenging multiple evidentiary rulings and prosecutorial conduct as fundamental error; court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 404(b) evidence violations amounted to fundamental error | Norton argues multiple 404(b) errors violated due process | Norton claims widespread admission of other acts prejudicially tainted trial | Not fundamental error; no unwaived constitutional violation shown |
| Whether officer's statements on credibility violated due process | Stated witnesses' credibility improprieties infringed due process | Jared’s comments improperly vouched for Stacy's credibility | No constitutional violation; not fundamental error; evidence viewed in context |
| Whether admission of Stacy interrogation transcript was fundamental error | Transcript admitted without proper limitations harmed due process | Norton invited error by stipulating; any error cured | Invited error; no fundamental error; curative actions sufficient |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct during opening/closing constituted fundamental error | Prosecutor’s rhetoric (Jerry Springer analogy, lies motif) tainted trial | Arguments were not misconduct; within reasonable inference from evidence | Not reversible; no fundamental error; trial overall fair |
| Whether the mistrial ruling and curative instruction were proper | Hornbuckle’s improper Oregon-fire remark required mistrial | Curative instruction sufficed; no real prejudice | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; mistrial not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (2010) (contemporaneous- objection requirement; fundamental-error standard for non-constitutional claims)
- State v. Cannady, 137 Idaho 67 (2002) (abuse of discretion in admitting evidence not fundamental error without objection)
- State v. Johnson, 126 Idaho 892 (1995) (admission of testimony lacking proper foundation; fundamental error analysis limited)
- State v. Aspeytia, 130 Idaho 12 (1997) (evidentiary issues; lack of objection; fundamental error analysis contemplated)
- State v. Grist, 147 Idaho 49 (2009) (two-tiered 404(b) admissibility framework; probative value vs. unfair prejudice)
- State v. Urquhart, 105 Idaho 92 (1983) (mistrial standard; reversible-error inquiry after curative instruction)
- State v. Grantham, 146 Idaho 490 (2008) (curative instruction impact on harmless-error analysis)