State v. Preston Adam Joy, 155 Idaho 1

Joy was charged with felony domestic battery, sexual penetration by a foreign object, and second-degree kidnapping after a July 2009 incident with Jennifer Joy.
Evidence of four prior alleged abuses by Joy was admitted under Rule 404(b).
A subpoena for Jennifer’s computer materials was quashed; the court later found adherence to Rule 412 affected relevance.
Jennifer testified to violent acts including bathing, tying, and anal penetration; Joy claimed self-defense and prior consensual conduct.
The jury convicted Joy of domestic battery, acquitted the sexual penetration charge, and failed to reach a verdict on kidnapping; Joy pled Alford conditional guilty but reserved appeal rights.
The Idaho Supreme Court vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial, adopting an acquittal-first approach to lesser-included offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by not instructing on lesser included offenses	Joy was entitled to lesser included instructions (misdemeanor domestic battery, false imprisonment).	State contends evidence did not support such instructions.	Yes; failure to instruct was reversible error.
Whether Rule 404(b) evidence of prior misconduct was admissible	Prior acts show a common scheme or plan.	Conduct is too attenuated to constitute common scheme; probative value outweighed by prejudice.	Not admissible for a common scheme; error not cured; not harmless.
Whether the district court abused its discretion by quashing Preston Joy's subpoena	Rule 17(b) governs subpoenas; court used Rule 412 to deny material.	Evidence potentially relevant to credibility should be accessible.	Yes; district court abused discretion by misapplying standards.
Whether admission of Jennifer’s preliminary hearing testimony and related statements was proper	Prior consistent statements or context were admissible to rehabilitate credibility.	Statements were hearsay or improperly admitted under Rule 106/Rule 801(d)(1)(B).	Error; improper admission affecting substantial rights; remand for new trial.
Whether other evidentiary rulings require reversal or remand	Multiple rulings affected credibility and weight of evidence.	Issues are harmless or properly admitted.	Cumulative review on remand; several rulings require new trial guidance.

State v. Shackelford, 150 Idaho 355 (2010) (evidentiary and harmless error standards; de novo review of relevance; Chapman test applied)
State v. Pepcorn, 152 Idaho 678 (2012) (common scheme or plan; testimony to prove planned conduct)
State v. Grist, 147 Idaho 49 (2009) (Rule 404(b) admissibility; common plan concept requires more than propensity)
State v. Johnson, 148 Idaho 664 (2010) (common scheme/propensity considerations; 404(b) relevance analysis)
State v. Raudebaugh, 124 Idaho 758 (1993) (acquittal-first rule; harmless error considerations under Rule 19-2132(c))
State v. Curtis, 130 Idaho 522 (1997) (two theories of lesser included offenses; pleading theory and statutory theory)
State v. Wilcott, 103 Idaho 766 (1982) (false imprisonment as lesser included offense of kidnapping)
State v. Flegel, 151 Idaho 525 (2011) (statutory vs pleading theory of lesser included offenses)
State v. Zichko, 129 Idaho 259 (1996) (free review; inclusion of included offenses )
State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (2010) (harmless error framework; Chapman standard)