State v. Head

• Docket Number: 49029
• Decision Date: 30 August 2023
• Parties: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JARED LYLE HEAD, Respondents.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

1

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JARED LYLE HEAD, Respondents.

No. 49029

Supreme Court of Idaho

August 30, 2023

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Oneida County. Javier L. Gabiola, District Judge.

The district court's order is affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, attorney for Appellant. Kimberly Coster argued.

Raul R. Labrador, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, attorney for Respondent. Kacey Jones argued.

BEVAN, CHIEF JUSTICE.

This appeal arises from the district court's denial of Jared Head's motion to strike certain evidence supporting a restitution order. Jared and his wife, Teresa, worked as onsite managers at the Village Inn Motel in Malad City, Idaho. Following an investigation by the Oneida County Sheriff's Office, Jared and Teresa were separately charged with grand theft. After pleading guilty to grand theft, Jared was ordered to pay $24,535.23 in restitution for allowing people to stay at the motel without paying, and for accepting rent payments that he did not relinquish to the motel owners.^[1] Relevant to this appeal, some of the State's evidence supporting the restitution amount related to a specific hotel guest-S.G.^[2] Just before resting its case at the restitution hearing, the State disclosed that S.G. had been found incompetent to stand trial in an unrelated criminal case several

2

months earlier. Jared then sought to strike any testimony, exhibits, and statements related to S.G., arguing the State withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of his due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The district court denied Jared's motion after concluding that his due process claim was moot because Brady did not apply to restitution hearings, which the district court couched as civil proceedings. Jared timely appeals, arguing that the district court erred in applying an incorrect legal standard to deny his motion to strike. For the reasons below, we affirm the district court's decision.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On July 26, 2018, the State of Idaho filed criminal complaints charging Jared Head with grand theft, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Jared's wife, Teresa,^[3] was also charged with grand theft. Both pleaded not guilty to the charges and waived their preliminary hearings. Their cases were bound over to district court.

The district court held change of plea hearings for both, and the parties discussed their individual plea agreements on the record. At the hearing, Jared pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The State filed a nonbinding plea agreement with the district court under Idaho Criminal Rule 11(f)(1)(B). That agreement stated that if Jared pleaded guilty to grand theft and possession of drug paraphernalia, the State would dismiss a felony possession of a controlled substance charge. The State agreed to concur with the recommendation made in the presentence report (PSI) unless it recommended imposition of a prison sentence, in which case it would ask for no more than retained jurisdiction. Jared also agreed to pay any restitution that the district court imposed in its discretion, and the parties were free to argue all other terms.

On August 16, 2019, Jared was sentenced to a unified term of seven years, with three years fixed and four years indeterminate. The district court retained jurisdiction for 365 days, ordering that Jared complete a rider. Jared returned from the rider on June 23, 2020, and was placed on probation for four years. The State moved for restitution, and a restitution hearing (to be held jointly with Teresa) began after multiple continuances, on November 20, 2020.

3

Due to its length, the hearing was extended to January 15, 2020, at which time the district court heard additional testimony from two of the State's witnesses. After which, the following colloquy occurred:

[PROSECUTOR]: So - and I forgot right before this hearing I had been -somebody asked if I had subpoenaed [S.G.], and I had not, which makes me assume that maybe he has been subpoenaed. So I guess my - the thing that I realized that maybe the parties should understand, and now that this [S.G.'s] become a significant topic of conversation with the sheriff too, I'm just now thinking of this

So [S.G.] has been charged with a DUI. It was, I think, late this last year. And in - I can't remember the exact dates. But ultimately we have recently, over the last months, couple months, had to be trying to deal with his case through this board of guardians and stuff, because ultimately [his counsel] had asked for a competency evaluation, and the competency evaluation came back that he was not competent to testify. So that was just recently in the last couple months.

I - that's something I know that I don't believe the other parties do, and so I think that they should be aware of that. I'm not aware of that being an issue. In the evaluation there's no issue there in regards to two years ago. But at least at that point two months ago, that did come back, that competency evaluation.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. [prosecutor].

[PROSECUTOR]: I just thought it important to mention. Sorry.

(Emphasis added).

The district court then inquired of defense counsel for both defendants regarding the revelation about S.G. Counsel for Jared then stated:

Your Honor, I've been in contact with [S.G.], and - well, I think you can probably tell how my conversation went, because I asked about the mental problems. I obviously did not know that he had been deemed incompetent. So yes, I did send him a subpoena. I was - well, I was concerned whether he would show up. Certainly had some concerns about what he would say, based on my conversation.

So what - and obviously this evaluation kind of changes things. I mean, I would . . . I don't want to drag this out, but I would - what I would ask the [c]ourt is to . . . that I be provided with that and so I can maybe raise some issues about his competency and maybe even going back. I mean, I know what [the prosecutor] said, but you know, I mean, who knows how long, you know, this mental condition has been going on. So that makes me even more concerned about just calling him as a witness now without really knowing what exactly he has going on, and I would like to know that.

4

[PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, I accidentally misspoke. He wasn't deemed incompetent to testify. He was deemed incompetent to stand trial, which basically is the same thing. I just misspoke.

(Emphasis added).

Counsel for Teresa joined in the request for the evaluation, asserting that "it seems to me like a Crawford problem ...." Counsel added, "without [the evaluation], we can't make an informed decision on whether or not we need Sheriff Jones further." The prosecutor then replied:

If they feel they need to review that, I absolutely understand. That's why I brought it up. I didn't want it to be a surprise. So - in fact, I had not even thought about it until just - when I found out they were going to call [S.G.] to testify.

So I don't object to a continuance. My hope is if we can get all of the evidence on [today], then ultimately if the - if either party decides to not call [S.G.] to testify or to bring anything up that's put in the competency evaluation, then maybe we can just move on to the [c]ourt's decision that way ....

After the prosecutor's revelation and this discussion, both Jared and Teresa testified. At the close of their testimony, the district court continued proceedings to allow defense counsel time to review S.G.'s evaluation. A few weeks later, Teresa moved to strike all testimony...