975 P.2d 782 (Idaho 1999), 24254, Roberts v. State

Docket Nº:24254.
Citation:975 P.2d 782, 132 Idaho 494
Opinion Judge:TROUT,
Party Name:Douglas Doyle ROBERTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent.
Attorney:Fuller & Williams, Twin Falls, for appellant. Hon. Alan G. Lance, Attorney General; LaMont Anderson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Case Date:February 22, 1999
Court:Supreme Court of Idaho
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 782

975 P.2d 782 (Idaho 1999)

132 Idaho 494

Douglas Doyle ROBERTS, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

STATE of Idaho, Respondent.

No. 24254.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise.

February 22, 1999

Fuller & Williams, Twin Falls, for appellant.

Hon. Alan G. Lance, Attorney General; LaMont Anderson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

TROUT, Chief Justice.

Douglas Doyle Roberts (Roberts) appeals the district judge's denial of Roberts' petition for post conviction relief. In his post conviction proceedings, Roberts submitted the affidavits of four jurors from his trial. Roberts claims the district judge erred when striking those affidavits. Roberts also complains that the district judge erred in not finding ineffective assistance of counsel.

Page 783

[132 Idaho 495] I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Trial. Roberts is no stranger to the Idaho appellate courts. The following factual account is taken from this Court's decision in State v. Roberts, 129 Idaho 194, 923 P.2d 439 (1996). A jury convicted Roberts on two counts, Lewd and Lascivious Conduct with a Minor under Sixteen and Sexual Abuse of a Child under Sixteen. Roberts sexually molested one of his step-granddaughters. At trial, Roberts sought to exclude evidence that he sexually abused four other young girls, three of whom were also step-granddaughters. The fourth was the daughter of a woman with whom Roberts had once lived. The trial court excluded the evidence as to the fourth girl, but allowed the three step-granddaughters to testify.

Seeking to impeach the three step-granddaughters' testimony at trial, Roberts sought to introduce evidence that he was out of the state during the time period of the alleged abuse. During that time, Roberts was incarcerated in Nevada for a voluntary manslaughter conviction. While Roberts wanted to present this alibi, he did not want the jury to learn of his past incarceration. Roberts filed a motion in limine seeking to prevent the state from presenting evidence of his incarceration. The trial court ruled that if Roberts presented evidence of his alibi, the State could elicit evidence of his incarceration, but not the reason for which he was incarcerated. To avoid allowing the jury hear evidence of his past criminal activity, Roberts elected to forego presenting his alibi evidence. Following a guilty verdict, Roberts filed a motion for a new trial claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and that the evidentiary ruling "impermissibly dissuaded him from presenting his alibi evidence."

First Appeal. Roberts appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial complaining of ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court erred in making certain evidentiary rulings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction 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 Roberts' motion for a new...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP