State v. Pullin, 266 P.3d 1187

Pullin was charged with felony possession of methamphetamine and misdemeanor possession of marijuana in Case 37155.
Pullin was charged with felony possession of methamphetamine in Case 37156; cases tried on separate days before the same judge with different juries.
Juries convicted Pullin in both cases; case 37155 and 37156 shared a sentencing hearing.
In Case 37155, Pullin challenged a dynamite instruction given when the jury reported non-unanimity.
In Case 37156, the state admitted evidence found in a vehicle; Rule 404(b) notice issue was raised due to lack of pretrial notice.
District court admitted the vehicle evidence, determining lack of prejudice and that defense counsel was aware; preservation of error was contested.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the dynamite instruction coercive?	Pullin argues coercion violated due process under fundamental error doctrine.	Pullin contends the instruction and questioning pressured jurors to continue deliberations.	No unwaived constitutional error; convictions affirmed for Case 37155.
Was Rule 404(b) evidence properly admitted without notice?	State failed to provide required Rule 404(b) notice before trial.	Evidence was intrinsic to the charged offense, not subject to Rule 404(b) notice.	Vehicle evidence was not Rule 404(b) evidence and was properly admitted; conviction in Case 37156 affirmed.

State v. Gomez, 137 Idaho 671 (2002) (blanket prohibition on dynamite instructions)
State v. Flint, 114 Idaho 806 (1988) (recognizes prohibition and allows targeted guidance when not deadlocked)
State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (2010) (fundamental error review for unobjected errors)
State v. Needs, 99 Idaho 883 (1979) (Rule 404(b) prohibitions on propensity evidence)
State v. Sheldon, 145 Idaho 225 (2008) (intrinsic evidence not subject to Rule 404(b))