State v. Tracy Lorene Davis
155 Idaho 216
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Meridian officer stopped Tracy Davis for traffic infractions; officer detected alcohol odor and observed watery, bloodshot eyes. Davis admitted two glasses of wine and drinking water.
- Field sobriety tests failed; breath test at station produced BACs of .087 and .090 (over .08 statutory limit). Davis was charged with misdemeanor DUI.
- At trial Davis sought to admit an audio recording of the stop; the recording contained Davis’s own statements (e.g., about wine, water, possible hydrocodone) and an officer remark, “you’re probably on your way up.”
- The State objected that Davis’s recorded statements were hearsay when offered by her; magistrate excluded or offered redaction because Davis did not identify a hearsay exception or a specific nonhearsay purpose.
- On intermediate appeal, the district court held Davis failed to preserve specific nonhearsay grounds for admission and had abandoned a planned cross-examination about the officer’s remark; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of audio recording (hearsay / preservation) | Davis: recording admissible for nonhearsay purposes (timeline, contradicting slurred speech, impeach officer re: hydrocodone); objection was made at trial. | State: Davis never specified particular nonhearsay purposes at trial, so the issue was not preserved. | Court: Affirmed — Davis’s general statement that tape was not offered for truth lacked required particularity under I.R.E. 103; issue not preserved. |
| Cross-examination re: officer’s opinion that BAC was rising | Davis: magistrate improperly limited cross-examination of officer about his remark that her BAC was rising, which would support that she was below .08 while driving. | State: any questioning required proper foundation (specialized knowledge); defense abandoned the line after failing to establish foundation. | Court: Affirmed — magistrate did not bar the inquiry; Davis failed to establish foundation and effectively abandoned further questioning. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gomez, 126 Idaho 700, 889 P.2d 729 (Ct. App. 1994) (proponent must show by offer of proof that out-of-court statement is not hearsay)
- State v. Boehner, 114 Idaho 311, 756 P.2d 1075 (Ct. App. 1988) (statement not hearsay only if offered for nonhearsay purpose that is relevant)
- State v. Gutierrez, 143 Idaho 289, 141 P.3d 1158 (Ct. App. 2006) (broad objections may preserve related factual challenges in some contexts)
- Hansen v. Roberts, 154 Idaho 469, 299 P.3d 781 (2013) (trial objections must be specific to preserve appellate review)
- Hobbs v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 62 Idaho 58, 108 P.2d 841 (1940) (general foundation objections insufficiently specific to preserve issues for appeal)