State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209

Background

Appellant Perry was convicted of two counts of sexual abuse of a child under sixteen and two counts of misdemeanor battery arising from overnight visits with T.P. and H.P. while in foster care.
Perry sought to admit I.R.E. 412 evidence to impeach T.P.’s allegations (prior false claim against H.P.) and I.R.E. 613 evidence to impeach the foster mother’s testimony; the district court excluded these.
Prosecutor repeatedly vouched for witnesses’ credibility during trial and closing, which Perry claimed amounted to prosecutorial misconduct.
Defense did not object to several instances of vouching testimony, while one objection to officer Teneyck’s testimony was sustained.
The district court’s exclusion of the I.R.E. 412/613 evidence, the challenged prosecutorial actions, and the cumulative-error theory were raised on appeal.
The Idaho Supreme Court clarified standards for prosecutorial-misconduct review and for fundamental/harmless error, and affirmed Perry’s conviction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether I.R.E. 412 evidence was properly excluded	Perry argued the shower-spray incident constituted a 'sex crime' under 412(e)(2) and supported admission to impeach T.P.	District court should have admitted the evidence to impeach credibility under 412 and/or 403 balancing.	District court did not abuse discretion; evidence not a true 'sex crime' under 412(e)(2); exclusion affirmed.
Whether I.R.E. 613 impeachment of the foster mother was proper	Evidence of T.P.'s prior false allegations against H.P. should be admitted to impeach the foster mother.	Evidence was relevant and admissible to impeachment under 613.	District court did not abuse discretion; exclusion affirmed.
Whether prosecutorial misconduct in eliciting vouching testimony requires reversal	Prosecutor improperly vouched for witnesses’ credibility and repeatedly referenced it in closing.	Some incidents were not objected to; the misconduct is not necessarily constitutional error.	Misconduct occurred but not fundamental error; cured by objections and not reversible under Chapman framework; harmless.
Whether unobjected prosecutorial misconduct can be reviewed cumulatively	Aggregate misconduct warrants reversal under cumulative-error doctrine.	No preserved errors meet threshold for cumulative error.	Cumulative error doctrine inapplicable; Perry failed to show multiple preserved errors.
What standard governs review of prosecutorial-misconduct/error claims on appeal	Apply a uniform standard for prosecutorial-misconduct claims.	Distinguish between preserved vs. unpreserved claims and apply appropriate harmless/fundamental-error standards.	Court adopted a clarified two-track standard: preserved errors under Chapman harmless-error analysis; unobjected errors under a three-prong fundamental-error test, then Plain-error-like review if appropriate.

Key Cases Cited

Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmful-error harmlessness framework for constitutional violations)
Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (structural defects vs. trial errors in due process analysis)
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (defective reasonable-doubt instruction analyzed as structural defect in some contexts)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (omitted element can be harmless where overwhelming evidence supports it)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (three-prong plain-error framework for unobjected errors)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (retroactivity framework for new rules)
State v. Kirkwood, 111 Idaho 623 (1986) (fundamental-error standard in Idaho)
State v. Thompson, 132 Idaho 628 (1999) (Chapman harmless-error application in Idaho)
State v. Johnson, 148 Idaho 664 (2010) (application of Chapman harmless-error standard to prior sexual-misconduct evidence)
State v. Christiansen, 144 Idaho 463 (2007) (clarified standards for review of trial errors in Idaho)
State v. Knowlton, 123 Idaho 916 (1993) (definition of fundamental error)