State v. Roman-Lopez, 47778

Roman‑Lopez was convicted of three counts of lewd conduct and two counts of sexual abuse of a child based on alleged abuse of two minors (K.K. and P.R.-R.).
At trial K.K. and P.R.-R. described the layout of Roman‑Lopez’s living room/bedroom and where abuse occurred; the State admitted a diagram K.K. drew during a CARES interview over defense hearsay objection.
Detective Turner testified that Roman‑Lopez told him, quoting his wife, “hey, don’t watch movies with those guys”; the defense objected on hearsay grounds and the court overruled.
The jury convicted on all counts; at sentencing Roman‑Lopez’s counsel proffered one factual correction to the PSI which the court did not redline; Roman‑Lopez appealed.
The court of appeals affirmed: any error admitting the drawing was harmless; Detective Turner’s testimony was not hearsay (and harmless if it was); no cumulative error; and the district court did not abuse discretion by declining to redline the PSI.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of K.K.’s CARES drawing (hearsay)	Drawing is out‑of‑court statement admitted for its truth → hearsay error	Testimony at trial already established room layout; any error harmless	Even if hearsay, admission harmless because K.K. and P.R.-R.’s in‑court testimony independently established layout
Admissibility of Det. Turner’s recounting of D’s statement quoting his wife (hearsay/dual hearsay)	Wife’s remark was hearsay and, because State relied on it in closing, inadmissible	Defendant’s words to the officer are party‑opponent; wife’s phrase was an instruction/command, not an assertion, so not hearsay	Wife’s remark was a non‑assertive instruction (not hearsay); Turner’s recounting admissible. Even if erroneous, admission harmless
Cumulative error	Combined evidentiary errors deprived D of a fair trial	No more than harmless errors occurred; predicate of multiple errors not met	No cumulative error: appellant failed to show multiple prejudicial errors
PSI redlining at sentencing	Court accepted appellant’s spoken correction but failed to redline PSI → remand for corrected PSI	Court declined redlining because the PSI language was facially reliable and appellant offered no corroboration; court’s brief “All right” didn’t demonstrate acceptance	No abuse of discretion: appellant provided no evidence the PSI sentence was inaccurate; court had no obligation to redline

State v. Garcia, 166 Idaho 661, 462 P.3d 1125 (2020) (harmless‑error framework and mixed standard for admissibility review)
State v. McDonald, 141 Idaho 287, 108 P.3d 434 (Ct. App. 2005) (verbal instructions/commands are not assertions and thus not hearsay)
State v. Hill, 161 Idaho 444, 387 P.3d 112 (2016) (distinguishing factual assertions from instructional utterances for hearsay analysis)
State v. Golden, 167 Idaho 509, 473 P.3d 377 (Ct. App. 2020) (sentencing court must redline PSI entries it rejects and record acceptance of corrections)
State v. Carey, 152 Idaho 720, 274 P.3d 21 (Ct. App. 2012) (PSI may include otherwise inadmissible material if reliable; defendant may rebut)
State v. Molen, 148 Idaho 950, 231 P.3d 1047 (Ct. App. 2010) (appellate review of court’s PSI‑striking decisions)
State v. Smalley, 164 Idaho 780, 435 P.3d 1100 (2019) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (standard for harmless error review)