State v. Guerra
| Decision Date | 26 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. 48193 |
| Citation | 497 P.3d 1106 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Danielle Merideth GUERRA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Aaron Bazzoli, Canyon County Public Defender, Caldwell, for appellant. David A. Delyea argued.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Kenneth K. Jorgensen argued.
In a case arising out of the Canyon County magistrate court, Danielle Merideth Guerra appeals the district court's decision affirming a judgment of conviction for driving under the influence of drugs ("DUI"). Guerra contends the magistrate court erred when it denied her motion to set aside the jury verdict under Idaho Criminal Rule 29 or, in the alternative, grant a new trial under Idaho Criminal Rule 34. Further, Guerra argues that the magistrate court erred when making a number of evidentiary rulings. The district court, acting in its appellate capacity, affirmed the magistrate court's rulings and judgment of conviction. Guerra timely appealed the district court's decision to this Court. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to vacate the judgment of conviction and thereafter remand the case to the magistrate court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Guerra was stopped by City of Caldwell police officer Randy DeLeon ("Officer DeLeon") after he observed Guerra driving a vehicle with a cigarette in one hand and a cell phone in her other hand. After speaking with Guerra, Officer DeLeon, who is a certified drug recognition expert, suspected Guerra was under the influence of drugs. Officer DeLeon described Guerra as carefree, confused, and "not really quite there." Her eyes were watery, puffy, and bloodshot, and it was difficult for Officer DeLeon to discern what she was talking about at times. Ashes from Guerra's cigarette fell into her lap as she spoke to Officer DeLeon, but she did not react. She had difficulty locating her driver's license, vehicle registration, and insurance information. Guerra stumbled and staggered when she walked to the back of her vehicle to look for her driver's license in the trunk. Further, she informed Officer DeLeon that she had taken Tylenol PM several hours earlier.
Guerra was asked to perform a battery of field sobriety tests. Guerra tested negative for alcohol after Officer DeLeon administered a breathalyzer test but performed poorly on the field sobriety tests; thus, she was transported to the Caldwell Police Department for a drug recognition evaluation. Officer DeLeon found several prescription medication bottles in Guerra's possession. The officer testified at trial that the medication bottles included warnings "to take due caution when operating motor vehicles, heavy equipment, don't mix with alcohol, and be careful on taking the substance with other medications ...." Guerra admitted she had taken several medications over a 24-hour period. After completing the drug recognition evaluation, Officer DeLeon concluded that Guerra was under the influence of a central nervous system depressant. Thus, Officer DeLeon, who is also a certified phlebotomist, drew a sample of Guerra's blood for testing by the Idaho State Police laboratory. Guerra's blood sample later tested positive for several drugs, including drugs that depress the central nervous system.
Guerra was charged with driving under the influence of drugs in violation of Idaho Code section 18-8004(1)(a), with enhanced penalties under Idaho Code section 18-8005(4) for a second DUI violation within a ten-year period. In preparation for trial, Guerra requested documents in the State's possession, custody or control intended to be used as evidence at trial. The State responded to the request but did not provide Guerra with a certified copy of the judgment of conviction from her prior DUI.
During discovery, the State timely provided Guerra with Officer DeLeon's phlebotomy certificate. The certificate was issued in April 2013 and did not have an expiration date. After the deadline for discovery, and approximately one month before the August 2019 trial, the State provided Guerra with Officer DeLeon's phlebotomy recertification, which was issued in February 2019.
Guerra filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude any evidence connected to the blood draw performed by Officer DeLeon. She argued, in part, that Officer DeLeon was not qualified to conduct the blood draw under Idaho Code section 18-8003 because the Caldwell Police Department had not adopted a written policy concerning blood draws. The magistrate court denied the motion but ruled that Guerra could challenge the admission of the blood test results at trial.
At Guerra's trial, Officer DeLeon testified that the Caldwell Police Department adheres to the blood draw standards promulgated by the Idaho State Police. Officer DeLeon also testified that it was his opinion, as a drug recognition expert, that Guerra "was under the influence of [central nervous system] depressants and was not able to operate a vehicle safely." Additionally, a toxicologist employed by the Idaho State Police laboratory testified that Guerra's blood sample tested positive for several drugs, including drugs that can result in muscle weakness, dizziness, sleepiness, slurred speech, rigid movements, uncoordinated movements, and confusion.
At the close of the State's case, Guerra moved for a judgment of acquittal under Idaho Criminal Rule 29(a), which the magistrate court denied. While the jury was deliberating, the parties addressed "part two" of the proceedings, which concerned the sentencing enhancement under Idaho Code section 18-8005(4) for a second DUI within ten years. Guerra moved to dismiss part two of the proceedings, if she was convicted in part one, because the State had not previously provided her with a certified copy of the judgment of conviction from her prior DUI. The magistrate court denied Guerra's motion.
The jury found Guerra guilty of driving under the influence of drugs in violation of Idaho Code section 18-8004(1)(a). After the jury returned its verdict, Guerra admitted to the prior DUI conviction but reserved the right to appeal the magistrate court's earlier ruling concerning part two of the proceedings.
Guerra subsequently filed a motion to set aside the jury verdict under Idaho Criminal Rule 29(c)(1) or, in the alternative, grant a new trial under Idaho Criminal Rule 34(a). The magistrate court denied the motion and subsequently sentenced Guerra to 365 days in jail, suspended the sentence, and placed her on probation for two years.
Guerra appealed to the district court, which upheld the magistrate court's evidentiary rulings and judgment of conviction. Guerra timely appealed the district court's decision to this Court.
When a district court issues a decision while acting in its intermediate appellate capacity, this Court directly reviews the district court's decision. State v. Chernobieff , 161 Idaho 537, 539, 387 P.3d 790, 792 (2016) (quoting In re Doe , 147 Idaho 243, 248, 207 P.3d 974, 979 (2009) ). This Court reviews the magistrate court record to determine whether: (1) there is substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate court's findings of fact; and (2) the magistrate court's conclusions of law are consistent with those findings. Pelayo v. Pelayo , 154 Idaho 855, 858, 303 P.3d 214, 217 (2013) (quoting Bailey v. Bailey , 153 Idaho 526, 529, 284 P.3d 970, 973 (2012) ). "If those findings are so supported and the conclusions follow therefrom and if the district court affirmed the magistrate's decision, we affirm the district court's decision as a matter of procedure." Id. This Court does not review decisions rendered by the magistrate court. State v. Phipps , 166 Idaho 1, 4, 454 P.3d 1084, 1087 (2019) (quoting Pelayo , 154 Idaho at 858, 303 P.3d at 217 ). Rather, this Court is procedurally bound to affirm or reverse the district court's decision. Id.
Guerra filed a motion to set aside the jury verdict under Idaho Criminal Rule 29 or, in the alternative, grant a new trial under Idaho Criminal Rule 34. After the magistrate court denied Guerra's motion, Guerra timely appealed to the district court, which affirmed the magistrate court's decision:
Given the totality of circumstances as described in the foregoing, there was substantial evidence that Ms. Guerra was in physical control of a motor vehicle, that she was impaired in her basic abilities necessary to the control of a motor vehicle, that she had quantities of drugs in her system at the time, as shown by the analysis of her blood and by her own admission, and that the established side effects of the drugs found to be in her system at the time in her system would affect her central nervous system which would affect her ability of drive. A reasonable mind could therefore conclude that the defendant's guilt as to each material element of the offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision of the magistrate judge to deny Ms. Guerra's motion to set aside and/or grant a new trial was therefore appropriate and is affirmed.
Guerra contends the district court erred when it upheld the magistrate court's denial of her motion to set aside the jury's verdict. Guerra argues that the State did not prove her impairment was caused by an intoxicating substance that affected her ability to drive. Thus, she asserts that "[a] reasonable juror could not have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [she] was under the influence of an intoxicating substance that made her unsafe to operate a motor vehicle."
The State argues that the district court did not err when it upheld the magistrate court's ruling because the totality of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Diaz
...intent requirement refers to that state of mind which in part defines the crime and is an element thereof." State v. Guerra , ––– Idaho ––––, ––––, 497 P.3d 1106, 1123 (2021) (quoting State v. Gowin , 97 Idaho 766, 767–68, 554 P.2d 944, 945–46 (1976) ). Whether a crime is a specific or gene......
-
State v. Head
...of his defense that he was prevented from receiving his constitutionally guaranteed fair trial." State v. Guerra, 169 Idaho 486, 495, 497 P.3d 1106, 1115 (2021) (quoting State v. Byington, 132 Idaho 589, 592, 977 P.2d 203, 206 (1999)). The same standard applies to civil restitution within a......