State v. Garcia
| Decision Date | 28 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 46253 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jesus Manuel GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. |
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant Jesus Manuel Garcia. Elizabeth A. Allred argued.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for respondent State of Idaho. Jeffery D. Nye argued.
After a jury trial in Ada County district court, Jesus Manuel Garcia was found guilty of second-degree murder, aggravated battery, use of a deadly weapon during the commission of the former crimes, and possession of a controlled substance. The district court sentenced Garcia to an indeterminate life sentence with twenty-five years fixed for second degree murder, which included a sentencing enhancement for the use of a deadly weapon. The district court also sentenced Garcia to twenty years, with six years fixed, for aggravated battery; this also included a sentencing enhancement for the use of a deadly weapon. The district court further sentenced Garcia to three years fixed for the possession of a controlled substance conviction. All three sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Finally, the district court ordered restitution to the victims in the amount of $162,285.27.
Garcia timely appealed, arguing that (1) the district court abused its discretion in allowing the State to present "in-life" photos of the victim and to elicit testimony about the victim's personality and character during trial; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct when she referred to this challenged evidence in her closing statement; (3) Garcia was deprived of due process because of the cumulative errors; (4) the district court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence that did not give proper weight and consideration to mitigating factors; and (5) the district court abused its discretion in ordering Garcia to pay restitution without adequately considering his current and future ability to pay restitution. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Garcia's judgment of conviction as well as the sentence imposed. We vacate the order of restitution and remand the case for further proceedings.
On Friday, January 13, 2017, Garcia and a group of friends went out for dinner and then to several bars in downtown Boise. Garcia consumed alcohol and ingested methamphetamine throughout the night. He was also observed carrying a knife. During the evening, Garcia was described by witnesses as aggressive and agitated.
Garcia's group ended up at China Blue, a club in downtown Boise. Once inside, one of Garcia's acquaintances, Eric Hernandez, went to the restroom, and testified that he was "shoulder checked" by a man either in the hallway to the men's restroom or at the entrance of the restroom. When Hernandez returned to the group, he told his girlfriend and Garcia about the incident. Garcia then went to the bathroom with Hernandez in tow. On the way, Garcia struck or "elbow checked" a man. Garcia and Hernandez then went into the men's restroom.
According to trial testimony, while Garcia and Hernandez were in the China Blue men's restroom, some kind of confrontation occurred between Garcia and a man by the name of Luis Rosales. Rosales testified at trial that Garcia had given him some kind of "mad look." Rosales exited the bathroom and went to the bar to meet several of his acquaintances, including brothers Misael Ruiz Gomez (Misael) and Daviel Ruiz Gomez (Daviel). When Garcia and Hernandez left the bathroom,1 Rosales, Misael, and Daviel approached the two men on the dance floor. A scuffle broke out and Rosales threw the first punch. Within a matter of seconds, Garcia stabbed Daviel in the chest and in the abdomen, and stabbed Rosales eight times total in the abdomen, stomach, side, and elbow. Garcia then attempted to flee the club, but he was tackled on the front steps by bouncers.
Daviel collapsed on the edge of the dance floor, and never regained consciousness. Daviel died at the hospital three days later. Rosales, unaware that he had been stabbed, tried to leave the club but collapsed on the club's front steps; he later recovered from his wounds
. The knife used in the stabbings was found where Garcia had been seen throwing it away as he fled. After Garcia was detained, police found a small plastic bag of what would later be identified as methamphetamine in his pocket. Garcia was taken into custody and interviewed at the Boise Police Department. He was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine. After Daviel died, Garcia was charged with second degree murder for Daviel's death, and with the aggravated battery of Rosales.
The case was ultimately set for trial in April 2018. Before trial, the State notified Garcia's attorney that it wanted to introduce several "in-life" photographs of Daviel. Garcia's attorney objected, arguing that the photographs were irrelevant and that, even if the photos were relevant, their introduction would be more unfairly prejudicial than probative. The district court overruled Garcia's objection, stating that the photos were
On April 9, 2018, the State called Daviel's wife, Danielle Nylander, to testify. When asked to describe Daviel, Nylander testified about how wonderful her husband was. When the defense objected to this testimony as irrelevant and overly prejudicial, the objections were overruled. The State also offered the challenged photographs into evidence. Garcia's attorney renewed the objection but it was overruled.
Throughout trial, Garcia admitted that he had in fact stabbed Rosales and Daviel in the nightclub, but claimed self-defense.2 Accordingly, the only issues for the jury to decide were whether Garcia had acted with malice, and whether Garcia had acted reasonably in self-defense.
On April 19, 2018, the final day of trial, the State began its closing statement by describing Daviel as "21 years old that, [sic] he had a loving family, that he grew up in Nampa, that he had a father, Jose, his mother ...." Garcia's attorney objected to this as going to the passions of the jury. The objection was overruled. Thereafter, the State briefly referenced Nylander's testimony, and referred to the two photographs once. The defense did not again object to this argument. The case was submitted to the jury after the closing arguments and instructions, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty for the charges of second-degree murder, aggravated battery, and possession of a controlled substance. The jury also found that the murder and battery had been committed with the use of a deadly weapon, which meant sentencing enhancements applied to those charges.
On July 19, 2018, the district court sentenced Garcia to unified sentences of indeterminate life, with twenty-five years fixed, for second-degree murder and the use of a deadly weapon enhancement; indeterminate twenty years, with six years fixed, for the aggravated battery conviction and the use of a deadly weapon enhancement; and three years fixed, for the possession of a controlled substance conviction. All of the sentences imposed were to be served concurrently.
After trial, the State requested restitution in the amount of $165,715.27. Garcia objected, arguing that certain costs were not permitted under the restitution statute and that Garcia had no ability to pay the remaining restitution amounts. The district court entered an order awarding restitution in the amount of $162,285.27 on December 17, 2018. Garcia timely appealed.
The standards of review for the various issues will be set out in the analysis of each issue.
A. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the in-life photographs, but abused its discretion in admitting certain testimony by Nylander about the victim. However, the error was harmless.
"When reviewing the trial court's evidentiary rulings, this Court applies an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Smalley , 164 Idaho 780, 783, 435 P.3d 1100, 1103 (2019) (citation omitted). In determining whether a trial court has abused its discretion, this Court asks whether the trial court "(1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason." State v. Bodenbach , 165 Idaho 577, 591, 448 P.3d 1005, 1019 (2019) (quoting Lunneborg v. My Fun Life , 163 Idaho 856, 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018) ). "The question of whether evidence is relevant is reviewed de novo, while the decision to admit relevant evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." State v. Shutz , 143 Idaho 200, 202, 141 P.3d 1069, 1071 (2006) (citation omitted).
Before trial, the State provided notice of its intent to introduce certain photographs of Daviel. One photograph was from Daviel's wedding day, and showed Daviel outside in a park wearing a suit. The other photograph showed Daviel and his wife together at a local charity run. Garcia's attorney objected on the basis of relevance and unfair prejudice. Nevertheless, this objection was overruled. Garcia's attorney renewed his objection on the basis of relevance at trial. The objection was again overruled. The district court reasoned that the photographs were "reasonable ... and the State[ is] entitled to show that the victim was a human being, which is an element that's been charged."
Garcia's attorney also objected at trial to certain testimony about the victim elicited from Nylander. Garcia's attorney first objected, asking to approach the bench after Nylander testified that Daviel "was the most...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martinez v. Carretero
...de novo- while the decision to exclude or admit relevant evidence under another rule is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id.; compare State Diaz, 170 Idaho 79, 91, 507 P.3d 1109, 1121 (2022) (explaining that whether to exclude relevant evidence as unfairly prejudicial under I.......