State v. Tankovich, 307 P.3d 1247

On August 16, 2009, Frank Tankovich and his brothers drove past Kenneth and Kimberly Requena; the Requenas observed a swastika drawn in the dirt on the Tankoviches’ truck and the brothers staring at them.
The brothers stopped, approached the Requenas, and threatened Kenneth; Kenneth retrieved a gun and called 911. The brothers left, then two returned on foot (one with a pit bull) and a third approached with a gun; police arrived and arrested Ira.
During encounters the brothers shouted racial slurs (e.g., “beaner,” “terrorist”) and threats; tattoos on William and Ira included white‑supremacist imagery and an expert testified about some tattoo meanings.
Frank was charged with malicious harassment and conspiracy to commit malicious harassment; trials of the three brothers produced mistrials twice and, on the third trial, Frank and William were convicted of both counts.
On appeal Frank challenged admission of his brothers’ tattoo evidence and related expert testimony, denial of a severance motion, and sufficiency of the evidence supporting racial motivation and conspiracy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of co‑defendants’ tattoo photos and expert testimony	State: tattoos and expert testimony were relevant to motive/intent for conspiracy	Tankovich: tattoos irrelevant to him and unfairly prejudicial; expert invaded jury province	Tattoo evidence relevant to conspiracy; testimony limited to symbols jurors might not know; admission not an abuse of discretion
Expert testimony under I.R.E. 702	State: expert will assist jury in understanding less familiar symbols	Tankovich: expert impermissibly opined on ultimate issue and invaded jury role	Court permitted opinion on obscure symbols (SS bolts, clover); excluded testimony on plainly understood symbols; no abuse of discretion
Severance of trials	State: joinder appropriate; evidence admissible against co‑conspirators	Tankovich: joint trial prejudiced him because of his brothers’ tattoos/evidence	Denial of severance not an abuse of discretion; no unfair prejudice shown beyond admissible evidence
Sufficiency of the evidence for malicious harassment and conspiracy	State: conduct, threats, racial slurs, swastika, and tattoos support racial motive and conspiracy	Tankovich: actions could be reaction to Kenneth’s gun display, not racially motivated	Viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, substantial evidence supported jury verdicts; convictions affirmed

State v. Pepcorn, 152 Idaho 678 (Idaho 2012) (presumption jury follows instructions)
State v. Rolon, 146 Idaho 684 (Ct. App. 2009) (conspiracy may be inferred from circumstances)
State v. Severson, 147 Idaho 694 (Idaho 2009) (standard for sufficiency review and substantial evidence)
State v. Ellington, 151 Idaho 53 (Idaho 2011) (expert testimony inadmissible when within juror common knowledge)
State v. Shutz, 143 Idaho 200 (Idaho 2006) (standards for relevance and Rule 403/702 review)