State v. PEPCORN, 152 Idaho 678

Pepcorn was convicted in consolidated Minidoka County trials of lewd conduct, two counts of sexual abuse, and one count of rape involving his nieces by marriage, with incidents dating to 1992–1995.
Information charging A.R.G. and A.J. offenses was filed in 2007 and 2008; consolidation and notice to introduce 404(b) evidence covering additional related victims were pursued.
The district court admitted 404(b) testimony from six witnesses, finding relevance to common plan or scheme to abuse an identifiable group of young relatives and for credibility, motive, opportunity, and preparation, after balancing probative value against unfair prejudice.
The court also ordered consolidation, reasoning it would minimize confusion and that limiting instructions would guide the jury regarding 404(b) purposes.
Pepcorn challenged the 404(b) admission on appeal; the Supreme Court reviews admissibility for abuse of discretion with de novo relevance under 404(b).
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed Pepcorn’s convictions, holding the 404(b) testimony admissible and not an error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 404(b) testimony was admissible	Pepcorn contends the acts were uncharged, dissimilar, and more prejudicial than probative.	State asserts testimony shows a common plan to abuse related children and serves purposes beyond propensity.	Not error; 404(b) evidence admissible.
Whether 404(b) probative value outweighed prejudice	Pepcorn argues unfair prejudice from many similar acts.	State argues probative value exceeds prejudice due to identifying plan and motive.	Probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
Whether the trial court's consolidation was proper	Pepcorn alleges consolidation risks jury confusion due to multiple victims and acts.	State contends consolidation is warranted by common plan and similar factual issues.	District court properly allowed consolidation.

State v. Johnson, 148 Idaho 664 (2010) (two-step 404(b) analysis; relevance and balancing test)
State v. Grist, 147 Idaho 49 (2009) (limits on common scheme or plan evidence)
State v. Field, 144 Idaho 559 (2007) (judicial caution on common scheme approach in sex-crimes cases)
State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (2010) (trial court's discretion and reasoned decision-making)
State v. Carson, 151 Idaho 713 (2011) (presumed jurors follow limiting instructions; 404(b) caution)