State v. Ogden, 519 P.3d 1198

Background

In Sept. 2018 police found explicit photos/videos of then-16-year-old V.H.; texts/calls showed frequent contact with 44‑year‑old Ogden. A July 30, 2018 photograph (showing V.H. and an unscarred penis) was central to a sexual‑exploitation count.
Ogden was indicted on multiple counts; a jury acquitted him of four lewd‑conduct counts and one dissemination count, but convicted him of sexual battery and sexual exploitation of a child.
Defense theory: V.H. was "set up" after joining a drug circle and having sexual contact with third parties (Michael Roller and Ty Birchfield); Ogden asserted Birchfield owned/possessed the Winnebago where the July 30 photo was allegedly taken.
Ogden filed multiple motions in limine under I.R.E. 412 to cross‑examine V.H. about her sexual activity with Roller and Birchfield and sought to admit expert gang testimony; the court excluded the Roller evidence, later denied cross‑examination about Birchfield, and excluded proposed testimony about Ogden’s alleged penile scar.
At sentencing the court refused to redact PSI passages recounting conduct underlying counts of which Ogden was acquitted; the court sentenced Ogden to concurrent 30‑year terms (15 fixed). On appeal the Court affirmed the sexual‑battery conviction and sentence, vacated the sexual‑exploitation conviction, and remanded for new trial.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Ogden's Argument	Held
1) Denial of Rule 412(b)(4) motion re Michael Roller (timing)	Excluding Roller evidence was proper because his sexual contact with V.H. occurred months after the events charged and is irrelevant under 412(b)(4)	Roller relationship was contemporaneous with the time V.H. made accusations; it showed motive/bias to fabricate and fits 412(b)(4)/(b)(5) exceptions	Affirmed — district court correctly limited 412(b)(4) to conduct at the time of the charged event; Roller conduct was temporally remote and irrelevant
2) Denial of Rule 412(b)(4)/(b)(5) motion re Ty Birchfield (photo date)	No evidence Birchfield was in Winnebago on July 30; 412 exclusion appropriate under court’s prior reasoning	Birchfield possessed/purchased the Winnebago and appeared on V.H.’s "kiss list" — evidence could show Birchfield, not Ogden, took the photo (directly relevant)	Reversed as to sexual‑exploitation conviction — denial was an abuse of discretion; Birchfield evidence was relevant to the exact date of the photo and error was not harmless; sexual‑exploitation conviction vacated and remanded
3) Exclusion of gang expert testimony	Gang evidence was irrelevant to elements and too attenuated; tied to excluded 412 matters	Gang evidence supports "set up" theory and explains motive, chronology, and third‑party involvement	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; gang evidence was irrelevant and intertwined with properly excluded Rule 412 material
4) Exclusion of evidence of Ogden’s alleged penile scar	Scar evidence was unreliable, untimely disclosed, and probative value outweighed prejudice under I.R.E. 403	Mother’s testimony that scar existed (and chainsaw incident) showed photo penis was not Ogden’s and impeached state’s exhibit	Affirmed — offer of proof failed to show scar existed at time of photo; insufficient foundational proof under I.R.E. 104(b) and probative value was low
5) Refusal to redact PSI and sentencing challenge	PSI may include arresting officer’s and victim’s versions; court may consider conduct even if acquitted; PSI accurate for sentencing purposes	Portions repeat conduct underlying acquitted counts and are unreliable; leaving them in PSI prejudices IDOC and future supervision	Affirmed re sentencing — district court did not abuse discretion in considering PSI or trial evidence; court may consider acquitted conduct. (Concurring justice dissented only on PSI redaction rationale.)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Chambers, 166 Idaho 837 (2020) (discusses I.R.E. 412 purposes and balancing defendant’s right to present a defense)
State v. Meister, 148 Idaho 236 (2009) (explains Sixth Amendment right to present a defense balanced against evidentiary rules like I.R.E. 412)
State v. Ozuna, 155 Idaho 697 (2013) (past sexual‑behavior evidence is admissible only in extraordinary circumstances)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (cross‑examination to show bias is constitutionally protected impeachment)
United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (sentencing courts may consider conduct for which defendant was tried and acquitted)
State v. Flowers, 150 Idaho 568 (2011) (PSI may include dismissed/charged conduct; court may consider such information at sentencing)
State v. Molen, 148 Idaho 950 (2010) (PSI should not include unreliable or misattributed records; future prejudice from inaccuracies is cognizable)
State v. Garcia, 166 Idaho 661 (2020) (harmless‑error standard and relevance analysis under I.R.E. 401)
State v. Hall, 163 Idaho 744 (2018) (relevant‑evidence and admissibility standards reviewed de novo/for abuse of discretion)