State v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 15 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 20659,20659 |
| Citation | 129 Idaho 325,924 P.2d 226 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Douglas Doyle ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
Fuller & Williams, Twin Falls, for appellant. Greg J. Fuller, argued.
Larry EchoHawk, Attorney General; L. LaMont Anderson, Deputy Attorney General, argued, Boise, for respondent.
Douglas Doyle Roberts was found guilty by a jury of lewd and lascivious conduct with, and sexual abuse of, his granddaughter, S.H. At the trial, the State presented the testimony of three other girls who said that Roberts had also molested them. By this appeal we are asked to determine the propriety of an evidentiary ruling by the district court that dissuaded Roberts from presenting alibi evidence which, he contends, would have impeached the three girls' testimony about prior uncharged molestations. The district court ruled that if Roberts presented alibi testimony to show that he was out of state at the time of the alleged uncharged misconduct, the State would be permitted to elicit evidence that Roberts spent this out-of-state time incarcerated in Nevada for a prior offense. Because of this ruling, Roberts elected to forego presenting the alibi evidence. After the jury rendered a guilty verdict, Roberts moved for a new trial based in part upon alleged error in the court's ruling that deterred use of the alibi evidence. This motion was denied. Roberts appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial. We conclude that the court erred in holding that the State would be entitled to respond to Roberts' alibi testimony by introducing evidence of his prior incarceration, but because we are persuaded that this error did not affect the verdict, we affirm the order denying a new trial. The sentences imposed by the district court are also affirmed.
Roberts was charged with lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor under sixteen, I.C. § 18-1508, and sexual abuse of a child under sixteen, I.C. § 18-1506. Both charges stemmed from his molestation of S.H. when she was nine or ten years old. Just prior to trial, Roberts filed a motion in limine to exclude the State's proffered evidence of alleged previous sexual abuse committed by Roberts against four other young girls. Each of these girls was prepared to relate experiences of sexual abuse by Roberts similar to that which he was charged with committing against S.H. The district court granted Roberts' motion as to only one of the four witnesses, and the State was allowed to present the testimony of the remaining three girls, who will be referred to herein for convenience as the "corroborating witnesses". 1
Following the district court's determination that the corroborating witnesses' testimony would be admitted, Roberts advised the court that he wanted to impeach their testimony by having his wife testify that Roberts was out of state from late 1988 through December 1990. This evidence, Roberts contended, would show that he was On this second motion in limine, the district court held that if Roberts presented the testimony that he was out of state from late 1988 through December 1990, the State would be permitted to elicit the fact that he was "in jail" during that time, though it could not divulge the nature of the crime for which Roberts was incarcerated. 2 As a consequence of this ruling, and in order to prevent disclosure of his past incarceration, Roberts elected to forego presenting his alibi evidence.
not even in the same state with the corroborating witnesses when the sexual abuse of these witnesses allegedly occurred. Roberts asserted that his alibi as to these uncharged acts was "airtight" because he was in a Nevada prison during this time period. Although Roberts wished to present his wife's testimony that he was not living in Idaho at the time of the alleged uncharged molestations, he understandably did not want the jury to learn of his prior imprisonment. Therefore, Roberts filed a second motion in limine seeking to preclude the State from presenting evidence that Roberts had been incarcerated at the time in question.
Following a guilty verdict, Roberts filed a motion for a new trial. As grounds for a new trial, Roberts argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial and that the court erred in its holding that Roberts' incarceration in Nevada could be disclosed to the jury if he presented the alibi evidence. In ruling on the motion for a new trial, the district court acknowledged that it may have been mistaken in holding that Roberts' use of his alibi to impeach the corroborating witnesses would entitle the State to disclose his incarceration in Nevada. Nonetheless, the court found that a new trial was not warranted because, even if Roberts' alibi evidence had been presented without any reference to his past incarceration, the jury verdict would have been the same. Roberts' claim that he was entitled to a new trial on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel was also rejected.
The district court sentenced Roberts to serve a unified life sentence with a ten-year minimum term of confinement for the lewd and lascivious conduct conviction and a concurrent determinate term of five years' imprisonment for the sexual abuse conviction. Roberts subsequently filed a motion under I.C.R. 35 for reduction of the sentences, which was denied.
On appeal, Roberts challenges the denial of his motion for a new trial, his sentences, and the denial of his Rule 35 motion.
Roberts' claim that he was entitled to a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel at the initial trial does not detain us long, for this claim does not state a permissible basis for a new trial. The grounds upon which a new trial may be granted to a criminal defendant are set forth in I.C. § 19-2406, 3 and ineffective assistance of trial counsel
is not one of the delineated grounds. A new trial may not be ordered for a reason other than those specified in Section 19-2406. State v. Lankford, 116 Idaho 860, 873, 781 P.2d 197, 210 (1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1032, 110 S.Ct. 3295, 111 L.Ed.2d 803 (1990). Consequently, an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel does not state a basis for a new trial. State v. Gomez, 126 Idaho 83, 86-87, 878 P.2d 782, 785-86 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1005, 115 S.Ct. 522, 130 L.Ed.2d 427 (1994). Such claims may appropriately be presented through an application for post-conviction relief. Id.; State v. Mitchell, 124 Idaho 374, 375-76, 859 P.2d 972, 973-74 (Ct.App.1993). It follows that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying this aspect of Roberts' motion for a new trial.
Roberts next asserts that he is entitled to a new trial because the district court erred in holding that evidence of Roberts' incarceration in Nevada could be presented by the State if Roberts introduced his alibi evidence. One of the grounds for a new trial specified in I.C. § 19-2406 is an error by the court "in the decision of any question of law arising during the course of the trial." I.C. § 19-2406(5). Roberts' contention that the trial court committed error in its evidentiary ruling asserts an error in deciding a question of law and therefore states a basis for a new trial cognizable under I.C. § 19-2406.
Where one of the statutory grounds is demonstrated, the court may grant a defendant's motion for a new trial "if required in the interest of justice." I.C.R. 34; Lankford, 116 Idaho at 873, 781 P.2d at 210. Whether to grant or deny a new trial is a discretionary matter for the trial court. State v. Dambrell, 120 Idaho 532, 543, 817 P.2d 646, 657 (1991); State v. Scroggins, 110 Idaho 380, 384, 716 P.2d 1152, 1156 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 989, 107 S.Ct. 582, 93 L.Ed.2d 585 (1986). Because Roberts has framed his appeal as an appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial rather than as a direct challenge to the court's ruling on his motion in limine, we must employ the standard of review applicable to decisions on new trial motions. The action of the trial court in granting or denying a motion for a new trial will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Powers, 100 Idaho 290, 596 P.2d 802 (1979). The trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion unless a new trial was granted for a reason that is not delineated in the code or unless the decision to grant or deny a new trial was manifestly contrary to the interests of justice. State v. Davis, 127 Idaho 62, 65, 896 P.2d 970, 973 (1995); Lankford, 116 Idaho at 873, 781 P.2d at 210.
Since Roberts' predicate for a new trial is a claimed error in the district court's evidentiary ruling, our review must begin with an examination of that ruling to determine if it was incorrect. If we find error in the district court's decision to permit disclosure of Roberts' incarceration in Nevada if Roberts introduced his alibi evidence, we must then consider whether, in view of that error, the denial of a new trial was manifestly contrary to the interests of justice.
In ruling on Roberts' motion in limine, the district court concluded that it would be unfair to allow Roberts to elicit the alibi testimony from his wife without allowing the State on cross-examination to establish that Roberts' absence from Idaho during the subject two-year period was due to his incarceration. Roberts argues that the evidence of his imprisonment had no relevance for purposes of proving the State's case against him and, to the extent that it had any relevance, the evidence should have been excluded under I.R.E. 403 4 because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the unfair We agree with Roberts that the trial court's ruling on this evidentiary issue was incorrect. The fact that Roberts was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. State
...finding that ineffective assistance of counsel is not grounds for a trial court to grant a motion for new trial. State v. Roberts, 129 Idaho 325, 924 P.2d 226 (Ct.App.1995). Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when finding the evidentiary error insufficient to grant Robert......