State v. Preston Adam Joy, 304 P.3d 276

Preston A. Joy was charged with second degree kidnapping, felony domestic battery, and sexual penetration by a foreign object stemming from a July 28-29, 2009 incident.
Jennifer Joy testified to violent acts including restraint, beating, drowning in a tub, and anal penetration with a sex toy; Preston denied and claimed Jennifer was aggressor and intoxicated.
Before trial, the State sought to admit four prior domestic violence incidents under Rule 404(b); the district court admitted them as proof of a common scheme or absence of mistake.
Preston sought to subpoena Jennifer’s computer for potentially exculpatory material; the district court quashed the subpoena based on Rule 412 and later ruled the material irrelevant.
At trial, the jury convicted Preston of domestic battery, acquitted on sexual penetration, and could not reach a verdict on kidnapping; a conditional Alford plea reserved the right to appeal pre-/trial and post-trial rulings.
On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court vacated the conviction, adopted an acquittal-first rule for lesser-included offenses, and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of prior misconduct evidence was proper	Joy argues Rule 404(b) relevance and probative value were lacking.	Joy contends evidence showed improper character evidence and prejudice.	Not permissible for proper 404(b) purpose; harmless error rule failed; reversal and new trial mandated
Whether the district court erred by refusing lesser included offense instructions	Joy contends lesser offenses should have been instructed per acquittal-first framework.	Joy contends the evidence supported lesser-included offenses; State urged harmless error.	Reversed; acquittal-first rule adopted; remand for new trial with proper instructions
Whether the district court abused its discretion in quashing Preston's subpoena duces tecum	Joy sought recorded evidence potentially material to credibility and exculpation.	Joy argues Rule 17(b) governs subpoenas; ruling based solely on Rule 412 was error.	Abused discretion; remand for proper Rule 17(b) analysis

State v. Pepcorn, 152 Idaho 678 (Idaho 2012) (defines common scheme or plan under Rule 404(b))
State v. Grist, 147 Idaho 49 (Idaho 2009) (recognizes common scheme or plan requires more than mere similarity)
State v. Johnson, 148 Idaho 664 (Idaho 2010) (limits 404(b) relevance to more than generic propensity)
State v. Raudebaugh, 124 Idaho 758 (Idaho 1993) (acquittal-first rule discussion and lesser-included offenses context)
State v. Curtis, 130 Idaho 522 (Idaho 1997) (acquittal-first framework and inclusion of lesser offenses)
State v. Flegel, 151 Idaho 525 (Idaho 2011) (statutory theory and pleading theory for lesser included offenses)
State v. Zichko, 129 Idaho 259 (Idaho 1996) (legal standard for jury instruction sufficiency and inclusion)