State v. Truman
150 Idaho 714
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Truman was indicted for lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen (I.C. § 18-1508) based on oral contact with his fourteen-year-old stepdaughter (T.S.), and for sexual abuse of a minor (I.C. § 18-1506(a)) based on a request that T.S. film Truman and a family friend (J.R.).
- The state alleged the sexual abuse occurred between August 2006 and December 2006; the lewd conduct act occurred on December 5, 2007.
- Prior to trial, the state moved to admit 404(b) evidence of uncharged sexual acts with T.S. and J.R.; Truman sought to restrict evidence to the indictment and to exclude J.R.’s diminished mental capacity.
- The district court admitted the 404(b) evidence and excluded J.R.’s mental capacity testimony as irrelevant.
- At trial, T.S. testified to the charged acts and to admitted prior acts; J.R. testified to acts with Truman in T.S.’s presence; the jury convicted on lewd conduct and acquitted/unclear on the sexual abuse charge, which the court later vacated.
- On appeal, Truman challenges the sufficiency of the sexual abuse conviction, the admissibility of 404(b) evidence, prosecutorial conduct regarding J.R.’s mental capacity, and cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of sexual abuse conviction under the statute in effect | State concedes indictment/facts insufficient for sexual abuse | Conviction should stand or be vacated due to insufficiency | Sexual abuse conviction vacated; insufficient under statute then in effect |
| Admissibility of prior bad acts (I.R.E. 404(b)) | Evidence of uncharged acts admissible to show grooming/plan | Evidence improperly admitted or unduly prejudicial | Prior bad acts evidence admissible for permissible purposes; not reversible error as applied to grooming and corroboration under 404(b) |
| Prosecutorial misconduct regarding J.R.'s mental capacity | Prosecutor violated pretrial order limiting mental capacity evidence | Error harmless and not affect outcome | Harmless error; did not affect trial outcome under standard Perry guidance |
| Cumulative error | Aggregate errors require reversal | Errors do not cumulatively require reversal | No cumulative error warranting reversal; lewd conduct conviction affirmed while sexual abuse vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grist, 147 Idaho 49 (2009) (two-tier Rule 404(b) analysis for relevance and prejudice in criminal acts evidence)
- State v. Johnson, 148 Idaho 664 (2010) (applies Grist standards; common scheme/plan and relevance of prior acts)
- State v. Blackstead, 126 Idaho 14 (1994) (grooming theory; admissibility of prior acts to show ongoing design to commit charged offense)
- State v. Tapia, 127 Idaho 249 (1995) (evidence of defendant's statements showing plan to target victim; admissible under 404(b) for permissible purpose)
- State v. Avila, 137 Idaho 410 (Ct.App.2002) (recognizes non-propensity purposes under 404(b))