State v. Russell G. Jones
154 Idaho 412
| Idaho | 2013Background
- Jones was convicted in Elmore County on two counts of forcible rape; the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed Count I and reversed Count II, and the Supreme Court granted review to address force and resistance standards.
- A.S. testified to two May 2008 incidents where Jones allegedly overpowered her with verbal resistance and physical force; medical exam showed no physical trauma.
- Evidence included a tape of a May 29 confrontation where Jones admitted some wrongdoing and text messages showing guilt; one witness described A.S. as visibly frightened.
- Jones argued the state failed to prove resistance and/or force for Count II and that the unredacted tape should have been excluded; the district court admitted most tape evidence.
- The Court ultimately adopted the extrinsic force standard, held verbal resistance suffices, affirmed Count I, reversed Count II, and found the unaired portion of the tape error harmless.
- The Court’s decision relied on Idaho precedents redefining resistance and force in forcible rape cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count I forcible rape | State contends verbal resistance plus force sufficed | Jones argues only minimal force beyond penetration and no true resistance | Sufficient evidence for Count I |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count II forcible rape | State asserts passive resistance constitutes resistance | Jones argues there was resistance; freezing is not resistance | Insufficient evidence for Count II |
| Admissibility of the unredacted tape | tape admitted as probative against Jones | Redaction needed to avoid unfair prejudice | Admission was error but harmless |
| Standard of review for evidence and sufficiency | Defer to jury on credibility; substantial evidence supports guilt | Appellate review should scrutinize evidence and discretion | Sufficient evidence reviewed under substantial-evidence standard; abuse of discretion standard applied to 403 balancing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Neil, 13 Idaho 539, 90 P. 860 (1907) (Idaho 1907) (rejected utmost-resistance requirement; verbal resistance suffices)
- State v. Andreason, 44 Idaho 396, 257 P. 370 (1927) (Idaho 1927) (resistance essential to show lack of consent and intent to use force)
- State v. Corbus, 150 Idaho 599, 249 P.3d 398 (2011) (Idaho 2011) (applies standard of review for appellate decisions)
- State v. Grist, 147 Idaho 49, 205 P.3d 1185 (2009) (Idaho 2009) (two-tiered analysis for admission of evidence; 403 balancing)
- State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 768 P.2d 1331 (1989) (Idaho 1989) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Neil, State v., 13 Idaho 539, 90 P. 860 (1907) (Idaho 1907) (reaffirmed resistance not equal to utmost physical resistance)
- State v. Andreason, 44 Idaho 396, 257 P. 370 (1927) (Idaho 1927) (resistance shows elements of crime; not required to resist Utmost)