*1
472
210 the
county
board of
commissioners
the said board that such notation GOODRICH, Jean Goodrich, Jeannie ' a/k/a assessor is erroneous or false.” The board Defendant-Appellant. county sitting commissioners as a board No. 11722. equalization required to examine the Supreme Court of Idaho. assessments and raise or lower those which March in their judgment were not lawfully as- sessed, and complaints determine all in re-
gard to the cash or assessed except value as
may prohibited. I.C. 63-402.
Nothing appears the record that the
assessor made notation on the assess- roll, 63-210, contemplated
ment I.C. § any way
which would in bar the board of
equalization considering any objec- may
tions been have submitted
pellant in this case. repeatedly that ordi- held
This court has taxpayer exhaust
narily aggrieved must an he can remedies before
his administrative Bengoe- district
seek relief in the court. 397, 130 County, 23 Idaho
chea Elmore v. ; Seed Co. (1913)
P.
Washburn-Wilson.
Idaho
v. Jerome Petition, Idaho Felton’s
(1943);
re
Franden
(1957);
Jonasson, 520P.2d 95 Idaho discloses further
The record taxpayers the form of prepared
assessor and mail- assessment showing the also appellant, which it to the copy ed county meetings of notice
gives is raised that issue No
commissioners. copy. such not receive
appellant did that the court my
It is trial conclusion appel-
correctly case and that in this ruled
lant, exercise the admin- having failed to to him in the available
istrative remedies submitting his
ordinary events course county commis-
problem to the board
sioners, heard to com- now be should not Co., Telephone
plain. Idaho Grever v.
Idaho 499 P.2d
SHEPARD, J., concurs.
McQUADE, Chief Justice. Defendant-appellant Goodrich, Jean (hereinafter appellant), charged degree murder in (I.C. 18- 4003) arising out of the fatal *3 her ex-husband Brent Goodrich. shooting during early morn- occurred 17, 1973, approxi- ing of October hours appellant’s mately m. at home 12:30 a. appel- A city jury found of Pocatello. charged, judgment guilty lant as Appellant’s mo- conviction was entered. trial were to dismiss and for new tions by the trial was sentenced denied. She labor, imprisonment at hard life judge to investigation was or- pre-sentence after a received, mitigation and after dered and appeals from Appellant held. hearing was entered, judgment which was dismiss her motions to denial of judgment reverse new trial. We for a pro- conviction, further for and remand opinion. conformity with this ceedings in shooting The facts of this incident have origin their in October of when pellant first met At that the deceased. appellant was divorced and three marriage. Appel- previous from a children lant of 1964. married deceased June adopted appellant’s In deceased Appellant and the deceased children. three were divorced appellant The record discloses together and off for the deceased lived decree was en- after the divorce some time 1970,appellant and tered. In December mar- The second remarried. deceased February of when riage lasted until a second for parties divorced were time. as dispute in the record is a
There be- that existed relationship nature of Appel- the deceased. appellant and tween although her relation- is that version lant’s Green, Frost & Frost Thomas C. its not without was ship the deceased with Heyrend, Cantrill, Boise, Salt Michael F. deep bonds friction, were there strain defendant-appellant. Utah, City, for Lake the two. between and affection of love contra- whо Kidwell, Gen., Lynn witnesses Atty. E. introduced The state Wayne L. appellant Boise, Gen., this, and who testified Thomas, Deputy Atty. dicted killing the idea of with the obsessed plaintiff-respondent. jealousy up out of his her deceased —either over children until the time fatal relationship shooting. with another woman or from gain proceeds
desire to on insurance early The fatal occurred in the policies that he carried. morning hours of After October retiring evеning p. about 10:30 1973, appellant married August night 16th, appellant m. on the of October the accounts of both Blaine Bolles. From was awakened what testified she relationship stormy from parties, ponding she described a loud noise as Appellant that Bolles outset. testified pipes. reaching find- After over and as repeatedly her well threatened that the ing deceased was in bed beside violence, struck her physical deceased hеr, frightened. According became she occasions, as a result and that on numerous account, picked up gun her own fear of she was terrible behavior his *4 place her (which was her habit to beside ac- testifed that Bolles’ further him. She thinking her and without to take bed), police in late call the tions caused her to (which glasses she wore all the time her him from August of 1973 to remove nearsighted condition), a arose and correct city of Avenue in the house on Sublette proceeded hallway dining down the to the had into which Bolles moved Pocatello room from where she believed the sound disputed marriage. Bolles the time of the coming. did not She testified that she testimony. appellant’s agreed He much of proceeded she be- lights turn on as difficulty had been between that there frightened think to do cause she was too marriage, during their pellant and himself figure that she saw a so. then rеlated She threatened he had never testified that but who, there, in her standing terrified occa- appellant, only and on the life of one At moment to be Bolles. that she believed bit off a little of steam” sion “to blow At several times. she shot deceased didHe kill the he threatened to deceased. only in un- clad that time the deceased was his appellant placing slapping and admit to a drinking apparently and was dershorts occasion, on her neck one hands around glass of water. discovered stated he did this when he but sit- another man while Within moments of shooting, her in the arms of Appellant children parking in awoke to find their ting (ap- in a car a lot. mother August 30, separated pellant) screaming hysterical. and An am- and Bolles summoned, bulance was September police and the divorced and were were called. The deceased was taken to spoke The record appellant discloses that nearby hospital, days where he died a few of police chief detectives of de- Appellant charged later. was with partment city of some- Pocatello commission in of murder de- September, 1973, time the middle of gree. (during separated from was Appellant appeal. several issues on raises Bolles, prior but the time divorce of her admissibility One issue cer- involves of him), inquiring possibility from abоut the testimony appellant tain contends obtaining gun protection of for her own improperly into was allowed evidence over against Bolles. A few weeks after this repeated objection. agree her with We talk, apparently approval and with of argument, this and reverse and remand deceased, appellant cali- obtained .25 ground. a new trial on this pistol, of ber a box semi-automatic and testimony or about in issue was elicited shells. On October attorney Reva appellant and her prosecuting deceased with from Mrs. moved Hill, new at 600 the de- acquaintance three children her residence a female whom city Pocatello. basis Highland began dating regular Drive in the of ceased aon appellant with July to reside he was He continued while divorced appellant. The testimony 2) contested con- “. . . he might as [defendant] sisted of allegedly stаtements get the well his stuff go back to skid row deceased to Mrs. Hill concerning appellant. from, where he came because she was clos- Although appellant objec- voiced numerous ing the hotel moving to Texas with hearsay tions on grounds, and other Mrs. her son.” Hill was following allowed to relate the The Court found the first told to her the deceased: be a declaration offered to show the state 1) appellant shot deceased e., declarant, mind i. the deceased shotgun with a prior occasion, on a (which victim, and ruled it admissible since the record discloses occurred five tending to show the mental “[e]vidence years one-half before the fatal in- state of the victim and hos- or ill-feeling in question); cident tility between decedent and defendant 2) appellant had threatened kill admissible.” Hill, the deceased and Mrs. as well as her- Thus the Court concluded that error no self, appellant fight after had a in allowing committed the first state- 10, 1973; September deceased on evidence, ment into testimony because the 3) appellant attacked woman with probative feelings, attitudes and dancing party whom the e., deceased was at a fear victim —declarant towards August 1973; defendant, any improper use of declaration members *5 bar 4) appellant fight that a at a caused by tendering limiting was avоided the of a which the and a friend resulted deceased by instruction the trial judge.4 badly getting beaten. The Court next itself the addressed testimony1 This was into evidence allowed admissibility statement, the of second limiting by judge, the trial or without commented: cautionary jury, on the instruction to the was offered to second statement “[T]he holding ground came the of that it within part Radabaugh of show motive the the Radabaugh.2 of State v. A review properly and is admissible [defendant] holding case the of that convinces us that Radabaugh that had since admitted he judge permitting this trial was error in that the hotel was to been notified testimony limiting evidence into without mov- closed and that the two ladies were instruction. ing it is proved back to Texas. When this Radabaugh, Court was asked victim) state- “D” made a (murder that following determine whether the two state- (the defendant-appellant, ment to “X” par- ments by made the to a third deceased show- purpose with the of Radabaugh), ty properly ad- about the defendant were probable circumstantially, state ing the by judge: mitted into evidence the trial defendant-appellant, (the mind of “X” of notice, knowledge such as Radabaugh), 1) “I’m of him scared death [defend- beer, which information motive or to show or drinking not so bad when he’s ant] subsequent bearing the cra- had as drinking whiskey when he’s “X” but he’s (defendant-appellant, “X” of than conduct zier a tick.” tеstify P.2d 582 that Idaho 1. Mrs. Hill also allowed was . that didn’t the deceased told her “. . he P.2d at 586. 3. Id. at now, [appellant] is ever this think she had — jury judge words, passed mine, instructed trial that she ever The his acted, for way considered grade not be could from first statement she 7th education therein, but lady, matter asserted had no truth of the and she act like a didn’t only appellant’s motion, to evaluate testi this be considered could morals —” On mony declarant-victim mind of the was reсord. of stricken disregard judge jury the fatal incident. of trial instructed testimony. this Radabaugh), subject the evidence is not involved in the criminal proceedings.7 As hearsay. McCormick, to attack as Evi- with admissibility piece of of evi- dence, 228, p. (1954)” (emphasis dence, probative where the value in original) substantially by is outweighed jury again the Radabaugh danger Since noti- of unfair prejudice to the de- purpose fied they fendant, of the limited for which this evidence should be excluded. testimony, were to consider this by As noted one court: statement was also deemed to have been “Quite a number of courts have con- correctly into admitted evidence. facts fronted similar to those in- here argues The state the statements volving hearsay statements by made Goodrich, deceased, Brent victim inferentially of a which homicide trial, by her fall Mrs. Hill and related implicate the defendant. state- Such categories within admissible declara- ments pre- victims often include they Radabaugh, tions outlined in because vious threats made the defendant to- reflect a state of mind of the declarant- victim, past wards narrations in- hostility, showing fear and victim also part cidents violence on the de- reflect on the existence of motive. In the fendant or general of fear verbalizations view, testimony empha- state’s Mrs. Hill’s of the defendant. such statecеnts While fear, hostility sized the and ill-will which admittedly are some value [sic] deceased, appellant existed between presenting picture complete presence evidenced the of a motive of all the facts and circumstances sur- contradicted fatal homicide, rounding the it generally pellant’s justifiable theory. homicide Thus agreed admissibility that their must be testimony position is the state’s that the balancing determined the careful admissible because it came within probative against preju- their value their evidentiary Radabaugh de- confines of the recognized dicial have effect. Courts agree argu- do not with this cision. We fraught statements are with in- such *6 ment. imposi- dangers require herent the recognized that a
Radabaugh
rigid
principal
tion
limitations.
statement offered to show the state of
danger
jury
is that the
will
the
consider
declarant-victim, may
mind of
be admissi
statement of fear as somehow
victim’s
exception to
ble under the “state mind”
reflecting on
state of mind
defendant’s
hearsay rule,6
the
the declarant-vic
e.,
where
than the
as a true
rather
victim’s—i.
intentions,
is
to an issue
tim’s state of mind
relevant
ac-
indication of defendant’s
Radabaugh,
supra
2,
aggressor
v.
State
note
93 Idaho
in
first
instance.
See
was the
the
731,
Schindler,
Cal.App.2d 624,
People
him
a clear
to make
ing conversations with the deceased outside
behalf,
in his
own
presence
of the defendant is an intru
present any
mitigation
information
right
sion on the
to confrontation guaran
punishment. Affording only the defend
teed
the Sixth Amendment
Unit
right
speak
ant’s
on the ac
counsel
ed .
Constitution,
States
as announced in
compli
behalf does not constitute
cused’s
415,
Alabama,
Douglas
380 U.S.
85 S.Ct.
v.
ance with this rule.
1074,
(1965),
13 L.Ed.2d 934
and Dutton v.
Appellant’s
assignments
other
of errors Evans,
74,
400 U.S.
91 S.Ct.
L.Ed.
unmeritorious,
are either
or can be correct-
(1970).
2d 213
Even if those statements
ed at a new trial.
are limited to direct evidence of the state
deceased,
of mind of the
where that issue
judgment
reversed,
of conviction is
(see
is relevant in the case
footnote 7
and the
is remanded for a
cause
new trial.
majority
they
opinion),
may not sur
McFADDEN, DONALDSON,
sweep
vive the broad
SHEP-
of the Sixth Amend
ARD,
BAKES,
JJ.,
guarantee.
concur.
ment’s
States,
;
(1973)
Eads,
United
369 U.S.
82 S.Ct.
United
States
L.Ed.2d
United States v.
Cir.
Federal Practice
(10th
1973),