State v. PENTICO, 151 Idaho 906

Capitol was closed for renovation; Governor's office temporarily on Borah Building third floor.
On March 25, 2008, Pentico was told he was no longer authorized to be on Capitol Annex and Borah Building floors.
On April 2, 2008, Pentico visited the Governor's office and was cited for trespass under I.C. § 18-7011 initially, then under amended § 18-7008.
Magistrate allowed amendment to specify returning and entering without permission within a year after notice.
Trial before the magistrate avoided discussing prior communications; the magistrate found all required elements of § 18-7008(A)(8) were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
District court affirmed the magistrate’s withholding judgment; Pentico appeals challenging elements, as-applied constitutionality, and evidentiary rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether state proved all elements of § 18-7008(A)(8)	Pentico contends elements not proven (no lack of permission or invitation proven).	Pentico argues state must prove lack of permission and return within a year; statute requires such proof.	Yes; state proved two elements: proper notice and return within a year.
As applied, is § 18-7008(A)(8) overbroad or vague on April 2	Korsen allows as-applied challenges to free-speech limits on public property.	Statute targets trespass, not protected speech; not overbroad as applied on April 2.	Not overbroad or vague as applied on April 2.
Preservation and review of March 25 constitutional challenge	Pentico preserved March 25 challenge for fundamental error or ineffective assistance.	March 25 challenge not preserved; Perry limits review; ineffective assistance not reviewable here.	March 25 challenge not preserved; no fundamental-error review; ineffective-assistance claim declined.
Preclusion of evidence regarding March 25 events	Excluded evidence could affect constitutional challenges.	Limitations were tactical; no reversible error given record limitations.	Not reversible; record insufficient to show prejudicial error.

Korsen v. State, 138 Idaho 706 (Idaho 2003) (as-applied challenges to trespass statute; speech considerations)
State v. Missamore, 119 Idaho 27 (Idaho Ct.App. 1990) (no requirement to state a reason for leaving property)
State v. Bowman, 124 Idaho 936 (Idaho Ct.App. 1993) (property owner need not justify removal from land)
State v. Reyes, 139 Idaho 502 (Idaho Ct.App. 2003) (statutory interpretation; plain language controls)
State v. Rhode, 133 Idaho 459 (Idaho Ct.App. 1999) (statutory interpretation; legislative intent considerations)
State v. Burnight, 132 Idaho 654 (Idaho Ct.App. 1999) (plain language and construction of statute)
State v. Escobar, 134 Idaho 387 (Idaho Ct.App. 2000) (statutory construction; clarity of terms)
State v. Beard, 135 Idaho 641 (Idaho Ct.App. 2001) (avoid nullity; contextual interpretation)
State v. Doe, 140 Idaho 271 (Idaho Ct.App. 2004) (notice and proscribed conduct considerations)
State v. Yager, 139 Idaho 680 (Idaho Ct.App. 2004) (First Amendment and trespass considerations)