State v. Weigle, 447 P.3d 930

On October 5, 2016, a robber handed a teller a demand note; the teller retrieved the note and it was submitted for fingerprint analysis.
Forensic examiner Natasha Wheatley compared latent prints on the note to Weigle’s known prints and concluded the note matched Weigle’s left thumb; Wheatley testified at trial and used a PowerPoint demonstrative (Exhibit 13) to explain the comparison.
The PowerPoint was admitted at trial as a demonstrative exhibit without objection and was shown to the jury during testimony.
During deliberations the jury asked for the PowerPoint; defense counsel objected because the exhibit had been admitted only for demonstrative purposes, but the court overruled the objection and sent Exhibit 13 with the jury together with a handwritten reminder that it was admitted for a limited purpose and Instruction No. 14 (a limiting instruction).
The jury convicted Weigle of robbery; he appealed challenging the trial court’s decision to provide the demonstrative exhibit during deliberations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Weigle preserved and may rely on Idaho Code §19-2203 to bar demonstrative exhibits during deliberations	State: the issue was not preserved below; statute does not control because the Court controls procedure	Weigle: §19-2203 allows only exhibits received in evidence to go to the jury and should be construed to prohibit demonstrative exhibits during deliberations	Court: argument preserved as a "polished" version of the trial objection but §19-2203 is procedural and encroaches on the Court’s rulemaking authority, so it is inapplicable here
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by sending Exhibit 13 to the jury during deliberations	State: trial court properly exercised discretion and gave limiting instruction; safeguards were present	Weigle: demonstrative exhibit was admitted only for demonstrative purposes and sending it to jurors risked undue prejudice	Court: no abuse of discretion; judge recognized discretionary nature, provided a limiting instruction (Instruction No. 14), and adequate safeguards existed (examiner testified, cross-examination occurred), so error not shown

Talbot v. Ames Constr., 127 Idaho 648 (recognition of Supreme Court's inherent power to make procedural rules)
In re SRBA Case No. 39576, 128 Idaho 246 (judicial independence from legislative encroachment on procedure)
State v. Abdullah, 158 Idaho 386 (distinguishing procedural vs. substantive law; rules govern when conflict with statute)
State v. Gonzalez, 165 Idaho 95 (clarifying preservation; parties may "polish up" arguments on appeal)
State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (harmless error framework for preserved, non-constitutional errors)
Pangborn, 836 N.W.2d 790 (Neb. 2013) (courts may allow demonstrative exhibits in deliberations but must weigh prejudice and use safeguards)
Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856 (standards for reviewing abuse of discretion)