Garcia v. STATE TAX COM'N OF STATE OF ID

Corp., Farm (citing at 757 Dev. Idaho at 300). 478 P.2d at Mary GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, Jose ease, present In the the district judge interest, prejudgment awarded paid to be May from date of the foreclo- STATE TAX COMMISSION OF the sale, sure for the difference between the IDAHO, STATE OF Defendant- property market value and the Respondent. amount due under promissory the amended note. prop- Because the market value of the No. erty subject dispute, the amount of Idaho, Supreme Court of damages subject liquidated was not or Boise, September Term. judgment mathematical until calculation Thus, entered. the trial court erred in 9, 2002. Jan. awarding prejudgment interest under Idaho 28-22-104, Code and that its order

is reversed.

VII.

ATTORNEY’S FEES attorney’s

Ossewardes seek fees appeal pursuant agreements to the be parties, including

tween the amended note,

promissory for attor

ney’s prevailing party fees to in litigation

arising agreements. pro “Contract attorney’s generally

visions ... fees are Redmon, Ayotte

enforced.”

(citations omitted). Because we affirm the except court

trial on all issues the award of interest,

prejudgment hold we that Osse prevailing party appeal

wardes are the they are entitled reasonable at

torneys agree fees under the terms

ment.

VIII.

CONCLUSION affirm judge

We the order of the district respect

with action between Osse- except and Opportunity

wardes for the award interest, prejudgment which we reverse. also attorney’s

We award reasonable fees to

Ossewardes as well as costs. SCHROEDER, WALTERS,

Justices EISMANN,

KIDWELL and CONCUR.

I. AND FACTUAL PROCEDURAL HISTORY and local law State enforcement authori- ties, warrants, acting under search seized suspected controlled substances from the workplace Mary home and of Jose (“Garcia”). Bureau of Forensic Services (“state laboratory laboratory”) identified the marijuana seized as substances and cocaine provided weights sample. and each for Based the same used for plead guilty in possession federal district court to of a con- trolled with substance intent distribute years prison. and was in sentenced ten State initiated forfeiture actions against personal property. Garcia’s real and seizure, Immediately pursuant after the 63-4208(2), Idaho Code Tax State (“Tax Commission”) Commission served Gar- cia Jeopardy with “Notice[s] Assessment Payment.” and for Demand[s] Immediate a The two demands total assessed $126,087. drug liability tax The Tax Com- $49,479 cash, mission seized as well over Garcia, belonging par- as two vehicles as payment tial for the assessments. timely protest petition Garcia filed and jeopar- for tax re-determination dy The Tax assessments. Commission set hearing, the matter for an informal but the Firm, Hailey; Hampton Roark Law & El- hearing date of the was deferred mutual liott, Boise, appellant. for R. Keith Roark parties. Approximately consent three argued. later, years nine weeks before the hear- Lance, General, Attorney Hon. Alan G. ing, requested opportunity an ex- Boise, respondent. Zalesky, for E. Charles weigh supporting amine and the evidence Attorney General, Deputy argued. the tax Tax assessment. The ultimately acknowledged that the sub- seized appar- could not be stances located had OPINION THE ON REHEARING ently destroyed. hearing, At the Gar- been COURT’S PRIOR OPINION DATED argued imposition cia the tax not DECEMBER HEREBY IS constituted double but also WITHDRAWN improper op- had because Garcia weigh portunity to examine and the seized TROUT, Chief Justice. Tax substances. The Commission affirmed previous rehearing On from this Court’s liability adjusted but the amount affirming opinion granting liability $113,192 order down to reflect summary for judg- weights provided by Commission’s motion lab- substance the state ment, oratory. we affirm. any parties argument new complaint present do not

In June Garcia filed § 19-315 jeopardy and asking to the double court for the district Commis- previous opinion of issues. sion’s decision to be vacated. The Tax Com- regal’d to below with summary restated and Garcia both moved mission B, analysis. A without further issues judgment. After district judgment in judge granted summary favor of Illegal Drug Imposing Tax On A. It affirmed total Commission. His Federal Conviction Garcia After $113,192, money liability of less seized Jeopar- the Double Did Not Violate proceeds the Tax Commission and the real- dy Idaho Constitution Clause two ized from the sale of Garcia’s vehicles. I, 13 Does Because Article Section December this Court issued On By Dif- Not Bar Successive Actions opinion affirming judgment Sovereigns. ferent timely a petition court. filed district (I.C. Illegal Drug Tax Act Idaho rehearing, granted for which this Court on -4211) impos.es §§ a tax on the 63-4201 to 5, 2001. March illegal possession quan minimal of more than “Every per substances. tities controlled II. possesses Idaho son who in violation of law” requisite for the REVIEW amount is liable STANDARD OF 63-4203(1). persons § must tax. I.C. These Summary judgment is proper “if stamps illegally-pos affix drug tax pleadings, depositions, and admissions on 63-4205(1). drugs. § Persons sessed I.C. file, affidavits, if together any, with the show subject violating penalty law are to a civil any is genuine that there issue as to tax, part of the of 100% of the collected as moving fact party material and that the tax, penalties. to criminal well as judgment to a as a matter law.” entitled (2). 63-4207(1), impos Garcia asserts that 56(c). filing I.R.C.P. of cross-motions ing drug tax on illegal him after he not, itself, summary judgment for possession in court been convicted of federal genuine that is no establish there issue provision jeopardy of the violates double fact, especially opposing material where the Idaho Constitution. summary judgment upon motions seek differ Constitution The United States issues or ent theories. First Sec. Bank of subject person that no shall “be for the same 787, 790, Murphy, Idaho v. 131 Idaho put in of life or jeopardy offense to be twice (1998). However, P.2d both when Const, limb.” amend. The Idaho V. summary parties judgment file for motions similarly provides that “[n]o Constitution facts, issues, relying the same theo person put jeopardy for the shall be twice ries, parties essentially stipulate “the Const, I, § 13. same offense.” Idaho art. genuine there is no issue of material fact Amendment, I, pro- § 13 Like the Fifth Art. preclude entering would court from sum punishments same of- multiple hibits for the mary judgment.” Lowder v. Minidoka Pizzuto, fense. v. 119 Idaho See State County No. Joint Sch. Dist. 132 Idaho (1991) (overruled (1999). 834, 837, “On Card, grounds by 121 Idaho other appeal, Court exercises free review over (1991)). 425, 825 P.2d 1081 that was before district the entire record court in order to determine whether either Supreme States the United judgment as a party is entitled to matter drug tax illegal Montana’s determined that law.” Id. punishment jeopardy pur- was a for double Ranch, poses. Dep’t Revenue Kurth

III. 1937, 1948, 114 S.Ct. 511 U.S. (1994). It that a L.Ed.2d reasoned DISCUSSION combination of four features showed punishment double rehearing grants in this Montana act to be The order case However, jeopardy purposes. case. These four features review entire rate, “remarkably high” Corp., were its lund v. Potlatch deter purpose, dependence (holding rent on the commission crime, levy upon goods pos of a Idaho double clause co-exten- 780-83, taxpayer. sessed Id. at counterpart sive with its federal the con- S.Ct. at 128 L.Ed.2d at 779-81. following of a text state forfeiture features, Looking Supreme at all these proceeding). Accordingly, criminal we state Montana tax Court concluded “de I, hold that Article Section 13 does not bar part[ed] so far from normal revenue laws as sovereigns. actions different successive punishment.” a form become Id. at sovereignty ap- Because the dual doctrine 1948, 128 L.Ed.2d at 780-81. plies, imposing illegal drug tax on Garcia that, tax, asserts like the Montana his conviction did not after violate the illegal drug punish Idaho’s tax constitutes double clause Constitu- jeopardy purposes. ment for double tion. imposition if Even of Idaho’s Drug Imposition Illegal B. The drug tax on after his federal convic Federal Tax After Garcia’s Convic- punishment, tion a second amounted to tion Does Not Violate 19- Section not Fifth would offend the Amendment’s 315 of the Idaho Code. jeopardy jeopar double clause. The double dy clause of the Fifth Amendment does not Idaho Section 19-315 Code prosecutions by bar different sov successive an prosecution or indictment” of bars “the West, 582, ereigns. Lynn v. 134 F.3d 593 charged public act as a offense that is “within (4th Cir.1998); Alabama, see also Heath v. state, territory, or the venue of another coun 82, 88, 433, 437, 474 106 88 U.S. S.Ct. try, as of this once the defen well as state” (1985). 387, L.Ed.2d 393-94 Garcia con acquitted or of the dant has been convicted tends, however, sovereignty that dual § sovereign. 19-315. act another I.C. I, apply doctrine does not to Article Section this bars Garcia asserts that statute Idaho 13 the Constitution. imposing Idaho Commission from interpreting provisions following of the Ida on him his con taxes federal Constitution, drug trafficking. ho Court is free inter viction for pret protective than its constitution as more clearly applies to sub- Section v. the United States Constitution. State actions, sequent criminal not civil tax assess- 748, Thompson, 114 Idaho 760 P.2d requires that in order ments. The section (1988). However, independent apply, act prohibition must be analysis under the Constitution charged public in the as offense State that will reach a differ not mean this Court of the Idaho. Public offenses are violations from that ent result reached the U.S. any punish- requiring a conviction law before Supreme a similar constitutional Court under § imposed. can 18-109. ment See I.C. McCaughey, provision. v. 127 Idaho State illegal drug tax does of the The assessment (1995). public require not a conviction and is not jurisprudence previous Our makes clear not 19-315 does offense. jeopardy constitutional double Idaho’s imposing illegal drug tax on prohibit provision with the Fifth is co-extensive drug posses- guilty plea to Garcia after his jeopardy Amendment’s double clause. See charges in court. sion 691, 693, Sharp, 104 Idaho State v. (1983) analysis (providing identical The Destruction C. Government’s jeopardy claim under Idaho and double Did Not Violate Evidence Seized Constitutions); Reichenberg, v. U.S. Rights Due Process 452, 457-58, P.2d 128 Idaho process in administrative tax jeopardy Due (declining interpret double requires taxpayer re proceedings provision of the Idaho Constitution different opportunity to in administra and a reasonable ly than Fifth Amendment ceive notice Berg- Parsons v. Idaho State suspension proceeding); be heard. tive license hand, the value is Comm’n, 572, 576, the other if 793. On Denver, unknown, materiality prejudice ele- (Ct.App.1986); Londoner 708, 714, inquiry focuses presumed 52 L.Ed. and the ments are (1908). that his faith. Id. presence Garcia asserts of bad on rights violated because not of drugs issue here are the sub- apparent destruction of State’s value. The exculpatory or unknown an workplace his home and stances seized drugs, basis of the verify their give not him a chance did at the Idaho State evaluated and tested identity weights, actual and their chemical laboratory laboratory. re Police crime upon which the matters coupled admission port, with Garcia’s its made assessment. drugs seized drugs were the same tested of evidence is The destruction enforcement, ample by Idaho law pro per defendant’s due se violation evidence lights. of evi Whether the destruction cess Thus, properly seized. based process violation de constitutes a due dence prove all three has the burden proceeding, the pends the nature of the test. elements evidence, and the circum nature surrounding stances the destruction Established that has not Youngblood, 488 U.S. evidence. Arizona Exculpato- Destroyed Evidence 102 L.Ed.2d 109 S.Ct. ry Value (1988) (holding a criminal “unless defen police, faith dant can show bad Materiality is defined preserve potentially failure to useful evidence possess exculpatory val “must both process a of of not constitute denial due the apparent ue that was before evidence State, law”); 534, 539, Paradis v. 110 Idaho destroyed, and be such a nature was also of 1306, (1986). P.2d has 1311 This Court be obtain defendant would unable to the showing previously specific bad held that of reasonably comparable by evidence other process required faith is to constitute a due 3, means.” Paradis at n. available context, In the criminal violation. omitted). (citations P.2d 1312 n. 3 Garcia “(1) test, balancing applies which examines challenging the results of offered the whether the evidence was material to testing. the Based the same evidence degree punish question guilt or of of the assessments, used for the Garcia (2) ment; preju the was whether defendant guilty possession in of a pled federal court to by diced the loss or destruction of the evi substance with intent to deliver. controlled dence; government was and whether the legiti This is undeniable evidence that was destroyed in acting good faith when it or lost impose to a tax mate for the Tax Commission Porter, v. 130 Idaho the evidence.” State addition, drugs. had alter the Garcia 781, 127, (1997); challenge native available to the measures Fain, 116, Idaho drugs. Although ultimately quantity of the (1989). P.2d opportunity deprived was of the to Garcia evidence, context, ap he not physically examine the was In the civil this Court deprived opportunity in of a fair plies the standard as criminal cases. and reasonable same State, laboratory’s testing procedures. the 127 Idaho to attack Stuart (1995); State, questioned the could have methodolo Paradis v. Garcia (1986) (both gy equipment by utilized the state labo and ratory drugs. petition post- weighing in Even if Garcia analyzed in the of a the context relief, samples drug samples, to proceeding). If the had access the the conviction known, quantity, to exact person the were material as the value the evidence is greater quanti asserting may been the violation has the and indeed have establishing ty the than that to which the Tax both affirmative burden eventually the prejudice agreed. of the Access to materiality elements him from the tax 907 P.2d at would not have exonerated balancing test. Stuart altogether.1 Because the evidence at issue is Although termination of the assessment. nature, exculpatory not of an it is not materi assessment, timely protest Garcia did the he al the balancing under test. any legal failed recite or factual basis for objection required by Tax Com-

2. Garcia has not Established mission’s generally rules. I.D.A.P.A See Illegal Drugs Destruction was requested 35.01.13.019.02.a. an infor- Prejudicial conference, pending mal but because of the prosecution, second hearing element test is the date of the prejudiced by by par- whether loss of was deferred mutual consent 3'/¿ the evidence. Garcia first received notice years passed ties. After from the assessments, within two issuance Com- days drugs being mission, seized. This was at believing parties that the had mutu- drugs, time when the the basis of the ally agreed that an informal conference was assessment, clearly were available necessary, up- its final issued decision request tested. Garcia did not to examine holding the assessments. When Garcia’s at- drugs until approxi October torney objected a hearing because had never mately years four he after received notice of held, been the Tax Commission withdrew its discovery assessment. The federal rules decision and an scheduled informal confer- charges relevant the federal criminal ence December Nine weeks brought against also afforded him the prior to years almost four opportunity inspection to conduct an the issuance at- 16(a)(1)(C).2 drugs. See Fed.R.Crim.P. Pur torney finally requested opportunity 16(a)(1)(C) suant Rule Federal weigh examine and evidence. The Procedure, Rules Criminal Garcia had the attorney Commission then informed Garcia’s opportunity inspect, weigh test possession it did not have of the evi- illegal drugs during the twelve months from dence seized law and the enforcement drugs the date the seized to he the date drugs destroyed. had in all likelihood been Instead, pled guilty charges. to the federal prej- Garcia has not shown he years Garcia waited four almost from the udiced Commission’s failure to seized, years date the three produce missing drugs. pled guilty from the date he to the federal charges. Shoum, 3. Garcia the has not that De- 63-4208(2)(b) § Idaho Code that Illegal Drugs struction the was of person aggrieved a aby drug jeopardy tax Done in Bad Faith days has 30 from assessment the date the or a final mailed served to file The the test element petition with requires specific showing the Tax Commission for a rede- a that the evidence Fain, point important testing, 1. was an This State v. semen available for such sam- yield ples would results that be test would (1989), Court where this held that "under material as to a lewd lascivious conduct process requires certain circumstances due charge possibly the could not exonerate de- [evidence]”, added). preserve (emphasis the state charges. kidnapping fendant as to and murder Fain, case, a criminal involved the states destruc- tion of swabs used in a "sex crime kit”. Id. The 16(a)( )(C)1 2. Rule of the Federal Crimi- Rules potentially noted when with a Court evidence provides: "Upon request Procedure nal exculpatory value to a criminal defendant has government permit the defendant the shall defen- state, by destroyed been lost or is there books, inspect copy photograph to or dant nothing the court can to restore the do defendant documents, papers, tangible photographs, ob- exactly position to the same he would have been jects, buildings copies portions places, or or or (Em- preserved. had evidence been Id. thereof, possession, custody are within added). However, phasis there are certain mea- government, or control of the and which are sures to ensure that the defendant receives fair preparation to the material the defendant’s though longer trial even he no has access to govern- defense or are for use prosecution intended exculpatory material which trial, or already ment as evidence in chief at the were gathered. time at one Id. The Fain belong held that even if the had the obtained from or to the defendant.” defendant showing A IV. destroyed in faith. bad required regardless faith is of whether bad exculpatory of the evidence nature CONCLUSION known or not. Stuart imposition Commission’s his illegal drug after tax Garcia showing to bad has failed make a violate double conviction did not above, op- faith. stated Garcia had the As Ar- because clause the Idaho Constitution inspect, weigh ille- portunity and test the I, 13 does not bar successive ticle Section gal drugs during the months from the twelve imposi- sovereigns. actions different drugs date he date seized drug did not violate tion of the tax also charges. pled guilty to the federal statutory because Idaho Code law years four from waited almost the date proceed- only prohibits duplicative criminal seized, years drugs and three from the ings. The seized evidence destruction charges. guilty pled date he to the federal hearing did not before the tax assessment request for such Garcia’s failure process rights because violated Garcia’s lapse put an extensive time failed showing faith on there was no bad Tax Commission on notice that such evidence judgment of the of the State. See, exculpatory. Young- generally, could be blood, *, district court is affirmed. at 56-57 n. 336- 488 U.S. * *, (presence n. or

37 n. 102 L.Ed.2d 288-89 government’s faith absence of bad turns on SCHROEDER, WALTERS and Justices exculpatory knowledge of value of the evi- EISMANN, CONCUR. destroyed). dence at time it was lost or KIDWELL, AS TO Justice DISSENTING argues exception B. SUBSECTION requirement

the bad faith should created be destroyed drugs are critical to because the so B of respectfully I dissent from Subsection deprived his defense that without them he is majority’s opinion I because believe however, Garcia, pi’ocess rights. of his due Commission’s destruction presents compelling depart reason evidence, prior to the assessment seized requirement the bad faith in this case. Con process rights. hearing, violated Garcia’s due ceivably, could there be some circumstances where, faith, may even without bad there Although timely protest to Garcia made example, in a due violation. For his initial instances, may be some so critical Commission, without a issued may requiring showing of bad faith upholding the two assessments over decision unfair, proceedings fundamentally make the Only years 3$ after the seizures. when Gar- party process protect depriving the of due protested the Tax sched- cia did Commission merely ions.3 This the restates fundamental hearing. an informal Nine weeks before ule analysis process: whether has of due there requested opportunity the Garcia an opportunity been notice and to be heard. weigh to substances examine the of req- formed the basis Tax Commission’s to the

Because Garcia has failed meet the test, of his due assessment. The Commission eventual- uisite the elements posses- that it not have process ly violated. informed him did rights not assume, likely different. ... that civil and criminal 3. Such case would more in a criminal To be totally ig interchangeable, process protection precedents in is to requires more are case. Due cases, differences.”) point protection great This nore those is also criminal and while the same cases, by required. in in it is noted Stevens in his concurrence can be afforded not Justice 561, 51, 60-61, Paz, Youngblood, generally U.S. 109 State v. 488 See Arizona 333, 338-39, (Bistline concurring in 102 20 J. S.Ct L.Ed.2d (1988), possibility part, dissenting part) (stating precedent the in “civil where he refers to the circumstances, evidence, simply transposed be into destruction of in some ... cannot wholesale may are to as to make The two traditions be so critical the defense the criminal context. fundamentally (Emphasis vastly They purposes, criminal trial unfair. serve different different. added). vastly govern which each also and the rules are 618 substances, of apparently

sion ing). refrigerate clothing Failure to destroyed been lost or by either state or samples made the semen deteriorate so that government. the federal they establishing were useless for the assail type. ant’s blood Id. at 109 S.Ct. at The Tax Commission’s assessments are Supreme 102 L.Ed.2d at 286. The .valid, presumed and Garcia bore burden non-preserved held that the samples semen proving that the assessment was incorrect. Id, n*, not material. at 56 109 at S.Ct. 63-4208(4). Without to access n*, L.Ed.2d at n*. The Court substances, seized Gareia produce could samples evidentiary characterized the ma weights provided by evidence to refute terial “of which can no more than said the Tax in support of its assess- [they] subjected could have been ment. The Tax Commission conceded that tests, might the results of which have exoner the record did not show whether even ated the defendant.” at at Id. 109 S.Ct. copies laboratory received state re- 337, 102 L.Ed.2d at 289. Supreme The ports hearing. before the The. notices Court stressed that the State did not even laboratory state re- attempt to use the semen in its own ports used provided the Tax Commission in expert case chief and that the defendant’s vastly differing figures weight as to had access to all forensic evidence the seized laboratory substances. One state actually used Id. at State. report acknowledged weight that the nominal 335-36, 102 S.Ct. at L.Ed.2d at 287-88. This (103.88 grams) of almost of the cocaine % considerably than different the case before from workplace approxi- seized Garcia’s was us. circumstances, mate. Under it these was weight contrast, clear that of the seized sub- In the substances seized from stances, and thus the amount of obviously Gareia were material as to his tax liability, was at at hearing. provided issue liability and the basis for the Tax simply assessment; opportunity had no respond yet, to the Commission’s the evidence present Tax Commission’s evidence and to was never made available Gareia. This his own liability. evidence on his tax parte Gingo, similar to case is Ex where the that, Supreme Court of Alabama held be that, majority holds under Arizona of allegedly illegally cause discarded evidence Youngblood, 488 U.S. S.Ct. dumped hazardous substances critical (1988), L.Ed.2d 281 the destruction defense, “fundamentally unfair” to seized did not violate Garcia’s due allow the State to use the results laborato process rights, because Garcia made no ry destroyed samples on in tests the criminal showing that in the State acted bad faith trial when the defendants had no access losing or destroying Young- In evidence. samples. the tested 605 So. 2d blood, Supreme U.S. Court held (Ala. 1992) Youngblood, (quoting at “unless a criminal defendant can show bad at 109 S.Ct. 102 L.Ed.2d at 291 police, faith failure (Stevens, J., concurring judgment)). preserve potentially useful evidence does Here, constitute a denial of law.” the Tax Commission assessed at solely Id. L.Ed.2d because of the taxes Youngblood, police State-provided weights 289 . had failed to of the seized sub- refrigerate clothing identity weight a sexual assault stances. the sub- victim that determining contained semen were critical to stances Garcia’s 334, 102 liability. Youngblood the assailant. Id. at S.Ct. at Because case, apply L.Ed.2d at 286. A swab taken from to the facts of this Garcia was not suggested, prove, required victim but did not that the to show that the State acted bad type destroying assailant’s blood differed from faith in the evidence. Garcia had the defendant.4 at of contesting Id. no means the Tax Commission’s (Blackmun, J., 102 L.Ed.2d at 296 without dissent- access the evidence (Blackmun, aspects type 4. Certain of blood can be deter- 109 S.Ct. at 102 L.Ed.2d at 296 J., dissenting). Youngblood, mined from semen. was based. upon which the assessment of the seized evidence destruction hearing violated the tax assessment

before process rights, and the tax as-

sessment should be vacated. P.3d 1275 Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent,

STATE McKEETH, Defendant-

William

Appellant.

No. 26539. Appeals of Idaho.

July 2001.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 28, 2002.

Review Denied Jan.

Case Details

Case Name: Garcia v. STATE TAX COM'N OF STATE OF ID

Court Name: Idaho Supreme Court

Date Published: Jan 9, 2002

Citation: 38 P.3d 1266

Docket Number: 25561

Court Abbreviation: Idaho