State v. Trevor Von Paoli
Background
- Paoli returned to his former shared residence to retrieve belongings; an alleyway altercation with girlfriend Dena Clemons involved yelling, pushing, and shoving; Paoli allegedly grabbed Clemons, tried to take her phone, and Clemons bit his hand.
- Clemons called 911; a sheriff’s deputy later spoke with her and recorded the conversation on body camera; the 911 call audio was also recorded.
- A magistrate court convicted Paoli of misdemeanor domestic battery (I.C. § 18-918(3)(b)) and destruction of a telecommunications instrument (I.C. § 18-6810); imposed consecutive 180-day sentences with most time suspended and probation.
- Paoli moved for new trial; counsel moved to withdraw; magistrate denied the new trial and granted withdrawal. The district court, on intermediate appeal, affirmed the magistrate.
- On further appeal to the Idaho Court of Appeals, Paoli challenged (1) the trial court’s refusal to instruct on self-defense, (2) admission of the body-cam and 911 recordings as hearsay exceptions, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, holding Paoli failed to show error and that ineffective-assistance claims were inappropriate for direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Paoli's Argument | State/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-defense jury instruction | Clemons pushed first and Paoli was trying to get away; instruction required | Record showed mutual pushing but no evidence Clemons struck first; Paoli was more aggressive | Denied — no instruction required; appellate courts affirm district court |
| Admissibility of body-cam and 911 recordings (hearsay) | Statements were not excited utterances or present sense impressions; too removed from event | Statements were immediate, spontaneous, and made while still under stress; magistrate properly exercised discretion | Admitted — magistrate did not abuse discretion; district court affirmed |
| Classification under hearsay exceptions (I.R.E. 803(1),(2),(3)) | Asked court to reject excited-utterance/present-sense analysis; invoked 803(3) instead | Magistrate admitted under excited utterance (and present sense for 911); did not rely on 803(3) | Held admissible under excited utterance (and present sense for 911); 803(3) not addressed |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Trial counsel failed to obtain better exhibits/recordings and committed errors in closing | Ineffective-assistance claims are generally not resolved on direct appeal; record inadequate | Declined to consider on direct appeal; such claims belong in post-conviction proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Korn, 148 Idaho 413 (review standard for magistrate record)
- State v. Trusdall, 155 Idaho 965 (Ct. App.) (appellate courts bound to affirm or reverse district court, not reweigh magistrate)
- State v. Murinko, 108 Idaho 872 (appellant must supply adequate record)
- State v. Beason, 119 Idaho 103 (absence of adequate record precludes presumption of error)
- State v. Field, 144 Idaho 559 (criteria for excited-utterance exception)
- State v. Smith, 117 Idaho 225 (trial court discretion on admissibility of testimonial evidence)