State v. Ohlson, 47137

In 2016, Erik Ohlson and Jennifer Nalley dated; Nalley became pregnant. Ohlson sent repeated texts indicating he planned to kill Nalley and himself.
On July 4, 2016, Ohlson drove from Wyoming to Driggs, Idaho, shot Nalley eight times (six in the back) killing her and her unborn child, then attempted suicide by crashing his car.
Ohlson was charged with two counts of first‑degree murder (with firearm enhancements) plus other charges; he pled guilty to first‑degree murder (Nalley) and voluntary manslaughter (the unborn child) in exchange for dismissal of remaining counts.
Before sentencing Ohlson objected to portions of the presentence investigation report (PSI): non‑victim impact letters, a PSI‑author comment urging incarceration, and a mental‑health assessment addendum. The district court agreed at hearing it would strike/redline those items.
The appellate record did not contain a corrected/redlined PSI or the order memorializing the court’s deletion; the district court nevertheless sentenced Ohlson to life with 25 years determinate (first‑degree murder) and a concurrent 15 years with 10 years determinate (voluntary manslaughter).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences but remanded to ensure the district court’s agreed changes to the PSI are reflected in the version disclosed under I.C.R. 32(h).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ohlson)	Held
Whether the district court complied with its ruling to strike/redline items from the PSI	The impact letters and PSI‑author comment were properly included in the PSI; any failure to physically strike is harmless because the court did not find them unreliable	The court agreed to strike the impact letters, the author’s comment, and the mental‑health addendum but the appellate record lacks a corrected PSI; requests limited remand to effectuate redactions	Remanded: appellate record lacked the corrected PSI; district court must ensure the agreed deletions/redlines are made and the corrected PSI is the version disclosed under I.C.R. 32(h)
Whether the sentences imposed were excessive	Sentences were within discretion and justified by the offense facts and assessments	Sentences are excessive given lack of prior record, family support, alcohol involvement, remorse, and mitigating factors	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion—court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, reviewed texts, PSI, and psychological findings before imposing sentences

State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261, 429 P.3d 149 (Idaho 2018) (multi‑tiered appellate review standard for discretionary trial court decisions)
State v. Carey, 152 Idaho 720, 274 P.3d 21 (Idaho Ct. App. 2012) (PSI may include otherwise inadmissible material if court finds it reliable and defendant can rebut)
State v. Molen, 148 Idaho 950, 231 P.3d 1047 (Idaho Ct. App. 2010) (court must cross out or redline struck information in PSI and send corrected copy to DOC)
State v. Burdett, 134 Idaho 271, 1 P.3d 299 (Idaho Ct. App. 2000) (appellate review of sentence is abuse‑of‑discretion)
State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 825 P.2d 482 (Idaho 1992) (burden on appellant to show sentence is unreasonable)
State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 653 P.2d 1183 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982) (independent appellate review of sentence considering offense, offender, and public protection)
State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 170 P.3d 387 (Idaho 2007) (when reviewing total sentence, consider defendant’s entire sentence)