State v. Robert Dean Hall, 161 Idaho 413

Background

March 11, 2012: Robert Dean Hall (defendant) shot and killed Emmett Corrigan in a pharmacy parking lot after a confrontation involving Corrigan and Hall’s wife, Kandi. Kandi was the sole eyewitness at trial.
Kandi had an ongoing extramarital sexual relationship with Corrigan; she testified that Corrigan pushed Hall in the chest shortly before shots were fired and that she then heard three shots and saw Hall with a gun and bleeding.
Hall suffered a grazing head wound and significant retrograde amnesia; he did not testify. His spontaneous statements to police were inconsistent about who fired first or how Corrigan was shot.
Defendant proposed jury instructions including justifiable homicide under I.C. § 18-4009(1) (resisting an attempt to do great bodily injury) and excusable homicide; the district court instead gave a self-defense instruction incorporating the reasonable-person requirement from I.C. § 18-4010 (which does not apply to § 18-4009(1)).
Trial rulings at issue on appeal: (1) omission of an instruction grounded in I.C. § 18-4009(1); (2) exclusion of Corrigan Facebook posts; (3) admission and scope of testimony from Hall’s 2006 concealed-carry instructor; (4) a jury question about holstering prompted by instructor testimony.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hall)	Held
Failure to instruct on I.C. § 18-4009(1) (resisting attempt to do great bodily injury)	No reversible error; instruction given adequately covered self-defense theory	Omission required vacatur/new trial because evidence (push, prior threats) supported § 18-4009(1) instruction	Affirmed: defense failed to preserve error; no reasonable view of evidence supported § 18-4009(1) (no ongoing attempt to inflict great bodily harm)
Exclusion of Corrigan Facebook posts under state-of-mind exception	Posts were speculative, not clearly about Hall; hearsay and irrelevant	Posts showed Corrigan’s aggressive intent toward Hall and were admissible under state-of-mind exception	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; linkage to Hall was speculative and foundation insufficient
Admission/scope of concealed-carry instructor testimony	Testimony about Hall’s weapons training and AOJ concepts was relevant to his knowledge/experience; limiting instruction given	Testimony impermissibly introduced legal standards, prejudicial, remote in time, and inconsistent with Idaho law (no duty to flee)	Affirmed: trial court reasonably limited scope, gave limiting instruction; no showing of prejudice or conflict with jury instructions
Jury question about holstering (after instructor testimony)	Instructor’s comment prompted question; trial court answered lawfully that no Idaho law requires holstering	Instruction/comments prejudiced jury and showed they disregarded court’s instructions	Affirmed: court properly answered jury’s question; no indication jury ignored instructions; presumption jury followed instructions applies

Key Cases Cited

State v. Suriner, 154 Idaho 81, 294 P.3d 1093 (Idaho 2013) (grant of review treated as new appeal to Idaho Supreme Court)
State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 245 P.3d 961 (Idaho 2010) (fundamental-error doctrine for unpreserved instructional errors)
State v. Skunkcap, 157 Idaho 221, 335 P.3d 561 (Idaho 2014) (review standard for jury instruction error)
State v. Poe, 139 Idaho 885, 88 P.3d 704 (Idaho 2004) (free review of legal question whether trial court properly instructed jury)
State v. Olsen, 103 Idaho 278, 647 P.2d 734 (Idaho 1982) (defendant entitled to instructions supporting his theory when reasonable view of evidence supports it)
State v. Eastman, 122 Idaho 87, 831 P.2d 555 (Idaho 1992) (instruction entitlement when reasonable view of evidence supports defense theory)
State v. Johns, 112 Idaho 873, 736 P.2d 1327 (Idaho 1987) (no entitlement to instruction unsupported by evidence)
State v. Carter, 103 Idaho 917, 655 P.2d 434 (Idaho 1982) (self-defense privilege ends when danger has abated)
State v. Koch, 157 Idaho 89, 334 P.3d 280 (Idaho 2014) (trial court discretion on evidentiary foundation)
Reed v. Reed, 137 Idaho 53, 44 P.3d 1108 (Idaho 2002) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
Hansen v. Roberts, 154 Idaho 469, 299 P.3d 781 (Idaho 2013) (limitations of broad continuing objections)
Weinstein v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 149 Idaho 299, 233 P.3d 1221 (Idaho 2010) (presumption that jury follows instructions)