State v. Hill
| Decision Date | 23 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 44011 |
| Citation | 387 P.3d 112,161 Idaho 444 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jonathan Alan HILL, Defendant-Appellant. |
Eric Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Maya Waldron argued.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Kenneth K. Jorgensen argued.
Jonathan Hill appeals from his conviction for felony driving under the influence (DUI). His appeal presents a single question. Over Hill's unsuccessful hearsay objection, the deputy sheriff who conducted field sobriety tests (FSTs) of Hill was permitted to testify as to what he had been taught regarding the presence of vertical nystagmus. Hill's appeal challenges this evidentiary ruling by the district court. We vacate Hill's conviction and remand for a new trial.
On the evening of January 10, 2014, the Nez Perce County Sheriff's Office received a call about a large party of juveniles in the Waha area. As this is a large area that stretches into Lewis County, the Lewis County Sheriff's Office was alerted and deputies from both Nez Perce County and Lewis County responded. Due to poor road conditions, the Lewis County deputies accessed the area through Nez Perce County. While in Nez Perce County, Deputies Davis and Smith of the Lewis County Sheriff's Department saw a pickup driving without taillights. After contacting Sergeant Martin of Nez Perce County for instructions, the Lewis County deputies stopped the vehicle.
Hill was driving the pickup. While speaking with Hill about the reason for the stop, Deputy Smith noticed an odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle and observed that Hill's eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Suspecting that Hill had been drinking, Deputy Smith contacted Sergeant Martin for further instructions. Sergeant Martin, who was on his way but delayed by the poor road conditions, instructed Deputy Smith to perform FSTs.
Deputy Smith had Hill perform three FSTs. Hill was wearing insulated overalls, a winter coat, and steel-toed boots. The tests were performed in the roadway, which had a slight downhill grade and was covered in snow. Deputy Smith administered the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, the walk and turn test, and the one-leg stand test. At the time, Lewis County Sheriff deputies did not have operating dash cams in their vehicles so there is no video record of Hill's performance of the tests. Deputy Smith testified that Hill exhibited nystagmus and failed to correctly perform the other two FSTs. Deputy Smith determined that Hill was impaired and detained him for Sergeant Martin.
Sergeant Martin arrived at the scene, took custody of Hill, and placed him in the back of his patrol car. Before Sergeant Martin arrived, Deputy Smith had begun the fifteen minute observation period required before administering a breath test. After taking custody of Hill, Sergeant Martin observed Hill for the remainder of the observation period. After a total of fifteen minutes had passed, Sergeant Martin asked Hill to take a breath test on a Lifeloc portable breath testing machine. Hill refused, stating that he felt the manner in which the FSTs were administered was not fair. Following this refusal, Hill was arrested for DUI and transported to the Nez Perce County Jail.
Hill was convicted of felony DUI following a jury trial held on August 25 and 26, 2014. At trial, Deputy Smith testified about Hill's performance of the FSTs. During the State's direct examination of Deputy Smith regarding the HGN test, the following exchange took place:
Deputy Smith also testified regarding Hill's performance of each of the other FSTs. Sergeant Martin did not conduct any FSTs, but testified that Hill smelled of alcohol and had bloodshot eyes. Both Deputy Smith and Sergeant Martin testified that their opinions were that Hill was intoxicated that night.
After the State rested, the defense called four witnesses who had been with Hill earlier that night. Hill had been four-wheeling with a group of friends in the snow. The defense witnesses all testified that they had not seen Hill drinking. Chyna Schertenleib, who was riding with Hill, testified that she had mixed Sprite into a half-full bottle of Pendleton whiskey earlier in the evening. She testified that the vehicle bouncing around while four-wheeling resulted in the bottle containing the mixture of whiskey and soda "exploding," spraying the mixture through the cab of the pickup and soaking the clothing of its two occupants.
During the State's closing argument, the prosecutor referred to Deputy Smith's testimony regarding the HGN test, reminding the jury that Hill did not object to any part of the prosecutor's closing argument. The jury found Hill guilty of DUI. After a brief second phase of the trial, the jury further found that Hill had previously pled guilty to a felony DUI within the preceding fifteen years. On October 14, 2014, the district court sentenced Hill to serve ten years, with three years fixed, and retained jurisdiction. Hill timely appealed.
Hill's appeal was initially decided by the Court of Appeals. Hill contended that the trial court had abused its discretion by admitting Deputy Smith's hearsay testimony regarding what he had been taught about the presence of vertical nystagmus and that the prosecutor had engaged in misconduct by eliciting inadmissible evidence, which constituted fundamental error. The Court of Appeals affirmed Hill's conviction, holding that the district court had abused its discretion by admitting Deputy Smith's testimony, but finding the error to be harmless. The Court of Appeals further held that the claimed prosecutorial misconduct did not constitute fundamental error.
Hill timely petitioned this Court for review. We granted that petition.
"While this Court gives serious consideration to the views of the Idaho Court of Appeals when considering a case on review from that court, it reviews the district court's decision directly." State v. Watkins , 148 Idaho 418, 420, 224 P.3d 485, 487 (2009) (citing Mattoon v. Blades , 145 Idaho 634, 636, 181 P.3d 1242, 1244 (2008) ).
"The trial court's judgment concerning admission of evidence shall ‘only be disturbed on appeal when there has been a clear abuse of discretion.’ " State v. Perry , 150 Idaho 209, 218, 245 P.3d 961, 970 (2010) (quoting State v. Gleason , 123 Idaho 62, 65, 844 P.2d 691, 694 (1992) ). This Court considers three questions when determining whether a trial court has abused its discretion:
(1) [W]hether the trial court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the trial court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (3) whether the trial court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.
Sun Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Idaho Power Co. , 119 Idaho 87, 94, 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991). "[T]he interpretation of a rule of evidence, like the interpretation of a statute, is reviewed de novo." State v. Moore , 131 Idaho 814, 821, 965 P.2d 174, 181 (1998).
Hill argues that the district court erred when it overruled his hearsay objection and admitted the testimony of Deputy Smith. Hill also argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct that amounts to fundamental error by eliciting testimony from Deputy Smith which correlated nystagmus with a specific blood alcohol concentration (BAC). Because the first issue is dispositive, we address only the evidentiary issue.
At trial, the State called Deputy Smith to testify about the FSTs he administered to Hill. As previously noted, after the district court overruled Hill's hearsay objection Deputy Smith testified about what he learned regarding the HGN test while attending the police academy.1 Deputy Smith was thus permitted to testify that "[w]e are taught in the academy that if—if it's vertical nystagmus, it's generally an indicator of over a certain level, which is generally .10, is what I was taught."
Hill argues that the district court abused its discretion in admitting this testimony over his objection because the statement is inadmissible hearsay and that such testimony is specifically prohibited by prior decisions of this Court. The State responds that the statement was offered to provide context and not for the truth of the matter asserted and is not hearsay. The State further argues that even if the statement was hearsay it was admissible under Idaho Rule of Evidence 702.
The Idaho Rules of Evidence defines hearsay as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." I.R.E. 801(c). Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible unless it falls within an exception provided by the rules of evidence or another rule promulgated by this Court. I.R.E. 802.
There are two requirements for a statement to be considered hearsay. I.R.E. 801(c). First, the statement must be made by the declarant out of court, and second, it must be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Id. In this case, neither party disputes that Deputy Smith was recounting an out of court statement made by an unidentified police academy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Guerra
...understanding." The State had the burden at trial to show that the testimony was relevant to an issue in the case. State v. Hill , 161 Idaho 444, 448, 387 P.3d 112, 116 (2016) ("To show that a statement is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, the party arguing for the admission......
-
State v. Chambers
...(2016) )."[T]he interpretation of a rule of evidence, like the interpretation of a statute, is reviewed de novo." State v. Hill , 161 Idaho 444, 447, 387 P.3d 112, 115 (2016) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Moore , 131 Idaho 814, 821, 965 P.2d 174, 181 (1998) )."When reviewing th......
-
State v. Christensen
...unless it falls within an exception provided by the rules of evidence or another rule promulgated by this Court." State v. Hill , 161 Idaho 444, 448, 387 P.3d 112, 116 (2016). One exception exists for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment. See I.R.E. 803(4). A proponent must sh......
-
Boswell v. Steele
...of Appeals when considering a case on review from that court, it reviews the district court’s decision directly." State v. Hill , 161 Idaho 444, 447, 387 P.3d 112, 115 (2016) (quoting State v. Watkins , 148 Idaho 418, 420, 224 P.3d 485, 487 (2009) )."The propriety of jury instructions is a ......