State v. Samuel C. Neyhart
160 Idaho 746
Idaho Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2010 a six-year-old (K.S.) reported sexual molestation by her uncle, Samuel C. Neyhart; he was charged in 2013 with three counts of lewd conduct with a minor (Idaho Code § 18-1508) alleging genital‑genital contact.
- K.S. testified she lay in bed with Neyhart on three occasions, he "messed with [her] bottom," and on the third occasion he "peed in [her] underwear." Photographs and CARES interview video corroborated her account.
- Forensic testing identified semen on K.S.’s junior‑sized pink underwear; DNA matched a profile from an oral swab of Neyhart. Mother and pediatrician testified about observed vaginal redness and bruising.
- Defense: Neyhart and his wife testified the underwear belonged to the wife and offered alternate explanations (wife’s prior observations of K.S.’s redness, possible semen leakage from medication). Neyhart denied any sexual contact.
- At trial the prosecutor impeached Neyhart for failing to disclose certain facts to police in prior interviews and used an unstipulated "pharmacy record" to challenge his claim of taking Cymbalta (objected to as hearsay). Neyhart was convicted on all three counts and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for genital‑genital contact | State: cumulative testimonial and physical evidence (victim testimony, CARES recording, photos, semen on underwear matching Neyhart) supports convictions | Neyhart: victim’s descriptions ambiguous; semen alone does not prove genital‑genital contact | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports convictions; ambiguities resolved in favor of verdict |
| Prosecutor comment on defendant’s silence (2010 interview) | State: prosecutor used failure to disclose facts to police as permissible impeachment of defendant’s credibility | Neyhart: comments violated right to remain silent; he invoked counsel in 2010 interview | Affirmed — pre‑Miranda silence/use as impeachment is permissible; no constitutional violation for 2010 interview |
| Prosecutor comment on defendant’s silence (2013 Miranda interview) | State: Neyhart did not invoke right to silence in 2013 interview, so no Doyle/Salinas protection applies | Neyhart: Mirandaized interview comments impermissibly used against him | Affirmed — record shows Neyhart did not expressly invoke right; no violation |
| Admission/use of pharmacy record (hearsay/impeachment) | State: even if improper, use conformed to court rulings and any error was harmless given corroborating evidence | Neyhart: record was inadmissible hearsay and prosecutor vouched for it, prejudicing jury | Affirmed — assuming error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given strong corroborative evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (Idaho 2010) (standard for appellate review of unobjected‑to error; fundamental error analysis)
- Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603 (U.S. 1982) (pre‑Miranda silence may be used for impeachment)
- Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (U.S. 1980) (use of failure to come forward earlier as impeachment of credibility)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (post‑Miranda silence cannot be used to impeach)
- State v. Ellington, 151 Idaho 53 (Idaho 2011) (discusses limits on using pre‑ and post‑custody silence; harmless‑error concepts)
- State v. Joy, 155 Idaho 1 (Idaho 2013) (inadmissible evidence may be prejudicial where case hinges on credibility of only two witnesses)