STATE OF IDAHO, Plаintiff-Respondent, v. SETH ADAM MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket No. 52143
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
July 8, 2026
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance and being a persistent violator, affirmed.
Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kierra W. Mai, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; T. Michael MacEgan, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
LORELLO, Judge
Seth Adam Martin appeals from his judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance and being a persistent violator. We affirm.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A law enforcement officer was on bikе patrol when she heard yelling. The officer saw Martin and another man engaged in a verbal dispute. When the officer approached the men, she instructed Martin to sit down so she could ask him questions. While reaching into his jacket, Mаrtin told the officer that the other man hacked into Martin‘s social media account. The officer interrupted Martin and told him not to reach for his pockets or belongings. While the officer was speaking with the other man, she watсhed Martin reach into his belongings and toss a syringe on
The officer collected the syringe, placed it in a plastic bag, and had its contents tested at the jail. After the syringe‘s contents tested positive for methamphetamine, the possession of a controlled substance charge was included on the jail booking form. The State charged Martin with possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and a persistent violator enhancement. Martin pled not guilty and the case proceeded to trial.
At trial, the State admitted the officer‘s bodycam footage into evidence and played it for the jury. On direct examination, the officer testified regarding the events shown on the footage. The officer further testified that, after she secured the syringe, either herself or the assisting officer took the syringe to the jail to be tested. During cross-examination, Martin asked whether the officer tested the contents of thе syringe before testing it at the jail; the officer testified she did not. The officer additionally testified that, before arriving at the jail, she was unsure what the contents of the syringe were.
Martin also asked the officer about her initial decision to arrest him for disturbing the peace. During this portion of Martin‘s cross-examination of the officer, the district court asked counsel to approach the bench. During the bench conference, the district court asked the prosеcutor: “[W]hat are you doing?” The prosecutor responded: “What do you mean what am I doing? Do you want me to object to this?” The district court answered: “Well, I‘m wondering why you‘re not.” The prosecutor noted he “didn‘t see it really going anywhere.” The district court told the prosecutor that “none of this seems relevant, and it seems like it‘s going to open the door to lots of other things.” Martin argued that it was relevant to the “veracity of the investigation” and the officer‘s credibility. The district court disagreed, Martin said he would “move on,” and the prosecutor said he would “pay more attention.”1 Martin subsequently asked the officer why the jail booking form listed an additional charge that was not included on the arresting оfficer form.
The jury found Martin guilty of possession of a controlled substance,
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When evaluating the trial court‘s evidentiary rulings, we review questions of relevance de novo. State v. Jones, 167 Idaho 353, 358, 470 P.3d 1162, 1167 (2020); State v. Aguilar, 154 Idaho 201, 203, 296 P.3d 407, 409 (Ct. App. 2012).
III.
ANALYSIS
Martin argues that the district court erred in sustaining the State‘s relevance objection while cross-examining the officer about the differences between the charges on the arrest form and the charges on the booking form. Martin contends the inquiry was relevant because it bore on the officer‘s credibility as to her investigation techniques and whether she arrested him for possession of a controlled substance prior to testing the syringe‘s contents. The State responds that the district court correсtly concluded this inquiry was not relevant to any issues in the case or to the officer‘s credibility. The State further responds that, even if the district court erred in sustaining the relevance objection, the error was harmless. We hold that the district сourt erred in sustaining the State‘s relevance objection; however, the error was harmless.
A. Relevance
Evidence that is relevant to a material and disputed issue concerning the crime charged is generally admissible. State v. Garcia, 166 Idaho 661, 670-71, 462 P.3d 1125, 1134-35 (2020). Evidence is relevant if it hаs any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
Martin was initially arrested for disturbing the peace and possession of drug paraphernalia. Both charges were listed on the arresting оfficer form. The jail booking form, however, only listed the possession of a controlled substance charge. Following the State‘s relevance objection to this testimony, the following exchange took place:
[Martin]: It is relеvant to discuss when [the officer] placed Mr. Martin under arrest for possession of a controlled substance.
[Court]: Why do you think that?
[Martin]: Because of the forms. It lists a time prior to when [the officer] NIK tested or DetectaChem tested the contents оf the syringe, so I think it goes to how--
[Court]: The investigation is not testifying. The investigation is not testifying. There is no credibility about the investigation.
[Martin]: It goes to [the officer‘s] credibility as to how she conducted the investigation. I think it matters when the test results--whether she placed [Martin] under arrest for possession of a substance prior to testing the contents of the syringe.
[Court]: Whether [Martin] was arrested at all, when he was arrested, and what [the officer] claimed to have arrested [Martin] for meаn nothing as to whether or not he possessed a drug or intended to use it. I mean, if you think that the information on the form is contradictory to testimony [the officer has] already given, then certainly that might be relevant to her credibility, but when she fills out the form doesn‘t mean anything about whether [Martin] possessed a syringe. Thank you. Objection sustained. Go ahead.
Matters affecting a witness‘s credibility are the proper subject of cross-examination.
B. Harmless Error
Error is not reversible unless it is prejudicial. State v. Stell, 162 Idaho 827, 830, 405 P.3d 612, 615 (Ct. App. 2017). Where a criminal defendant shows an error based on a contemporaneously objected-to, nonconstitutional violation, the State then has the burden of demonstrating to the appellate court beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not contribute to the jury‘s verdict. State v. Montgomery, 163 Idaho 40, 46, 408 P.3d 38, 44 (2017). Thus, we examine whether the alleged error complained of in the present case was harmless. See id. Harmless error is error unimportаnt in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question, as revealed in the record. Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. 391, 403 (1991); State v. Garcia, 166 Idaho 661, 674, 462 P.3d 1125, 1138 (2020). This standard requires weighing the probative force of the record as a whole while excluding the erroneous evidence and at the same time comparing it against the probative force of the error. Id. If the error‘s effect is minimal compared to the probative force of the record establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without the errоr, then the error did not contribute to the verdict rendered and is harmless. Id. The reviewing court must take into account what effect the error had, or reasonably may have had, on the jury in the context of the total setting and in relation to all else that happened, which necessarily includes the evidence presented. Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764 (1946).
Although Martin should have been allowed to elicit testimony from the officer regarding the difference between the arrest form and the boоking form, the error was harmless. Applying the foregoing standards, the minimal probative force of the alleged error is outweighed by the probative force of the record establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without the allegеd error. The jury considered the officer‘s bodycam footage that showed Martin reach into his jacket pocket and then discard a syringe. On direct examination, the jury heard the officer‘s testimony concerning the events shown in thе bodycam footage, including that Martin had possession of a syringe after reaching into his jacket pocket. On both direct examination and cross-examination, the jury heard the officer‘s testimony that she had not tested the cоntents of the syringe until after
IV.
CONCLUSION
The State‘s relevance objection to Martin‘s cross-examination of the officer should have been overruled. Although Martin established error in the challenged evidentiary ruling, the error was harmless. Accordingly, Martin‘s judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance and being a pеrsistent violator is affirmed.
Chief Judge TRIBE and Judge FLEMING, CONCUR.