State v. Oberg, 47207

Background

Oberg was charged with rape (I.C. § 18-6101(5)/(7)) after a June 2017 camping trip; victim K.O. testified she smoked marijuana, drank six beers, felt immediately sedated, blacked out repeatedly, and was sexually assaulted inside a camper.
Evidence: K.O.’s Snapchat messages with Oberg (some admitted redacted); testimony that E.G. kept 100 mg Seroquel in the camper; an inmate’s statement that Oberg said he gave K.O. Seroquel; and expert pharmacologist Dr. Dawson testified generally about combined effects of Seroquel, alcohol, and marijuana on the ability to consent.
First trial ended in mistrial; second trial produced a guilty verdict for rape and a persistent violator finding; district court sentenced Oberg to life with fifteen years determinate.
At sentencing Oberg requested two PSI corrections; the court announced it would strike or note the corrections but the PSI in the record was not redlined, prompting an appeal point and remand order to correct the PSI under I.C.R. 32(h).
On appeal Oberg challenged: admissibility of Dr. Dawson’s testimony, hearsay/redaction decisions for Snapchat exhibits (and waiver), exclusion of a defense Snapchat exhibit under I.R.E. 412 and for lack of foundation, cumulative error, PSI redlining, and sentence excessiveness.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of expert testimony on combined effects of Seroquel, alcohol, marijuana	State: Dr. Dawson may testify generally about effects; facts presented at trial support his opinion.	Oberg: Opinion speculative and unreliable without blood test or direct proof Seroquel was in K.O.’s system.	Affirmed: Court did not abuse discretion; trial evidence supplied a sufficient factual basis for a general opinion (distinguishing Samuel).
Snapchat exhibits A–F (hearsay/redaction)	State: messages include party-opponent admissions and redacted context was necessary.	Oberg: More extensive redaction required; portions not necessary for context.	Affirmed admission: Oberg waived his hearsay objection at the second trial by stating "no objection."
Admission of Defendant’s Exhibit 1 (additional Snapchat messages; I.R.E. 412)	Oberg: Exhibit 1 admissible to prove consent under Rule 412(b)(2) and for completeness.	State: Irrelevant to intoxication/unconsciousness, no foundation, barred by Rule 412, and prejudicial.	Affirmed exclusion: Court’s alternative rulings—lack of foundation and prejudicial > probative—stand and were not challenged on appeal.
Corrections / redlining of the PSI	Oberg: Court agreed to corrections but failed to redline PSI copy; must be reflected and distributed as required.	State: Absence of corrected PSI is harmless.	Remanded: Court must ensure the corrections are reflected on the PSI and supply corrected PSI under I.C.R. 32(h).
Excessive sentence	Oberg: Sentence unreasonable given mitigating factors and amenability to treatment.	State: Sentence necessary to protect public and serves deterrence, punishment objectives.	Affirmed: Sentence not an abuse of discretion after independent review.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Samuel, 165 Idaho 746 (2019) (expert opinion excluded where expert had to speculate about drug presence without blood evidence)
Adams v. State, 158 Idaho 530 (2015) (expert opinion is inadmissible if speculative, conclusory, or unsubstantiated by record facts)
State v. Stanfield, 158 Idaho 327 (2015) (experts may rely on facts presented at trial or reasonably relied upon in the field)
State v. Golden, 167 Idaho 509 (2020) (district court must reject unreliable PSI information and redline/strike it from the PSI)
State v. Molen, 148 Idaho 950 (2009) (trial court should cross out unreliable PSI information and send corrected copy to corrections)
State v. Carey, 152 Idaho 720 (2006) (court may consider otherwise inadmissible PSI material if reliable; must disregard unfounded information)
State v. Caliz-Bautista, 162 Idaho 833 (2017) (standards for admissibility of expert testimony under I.R.E. 702)