State v. Inthapanya, 010719 IDCCA, 45510

Docket Nº:45510
Opinion Judge:HUSKEY, JUDGE.
Party Name:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KHAMLA INTHAPANYA, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Judge Panel:Chief Judge GRATTON and Judge LORELLO CONCUR.
Case Date:January 07, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho
 
FREE EXCERPT

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KHAMLA INTHAPANYA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 45510

Court of Appeals of Idaho

January 7, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Nancy Baskin, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

HUSKEY, JUDGE.

Khamla Inthapanya appeals from the district court's judgment of conviction. He argues the district court abused its discretion by failing to completely analyze his objection to an expert witness's testimony at trial. The district court's judgment of conviction is affirmed.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The State charged Inthapanya with felony conspiracy to traffic in heroin. At trial, the State presented evidence that a confidential informant and an undercover officer made several controlled buys of heroin, totaling over twenty-eight grams, from individuals who Inthapanya had supplied drugs. Although some evidence was admitted that the confidential informant had another source of heroin besides Inthapanya, a detective testified that "it was very apparent to me that [the confidential informant] was dealing with one source." Inthapanya objected to the detective's statement, arguing the detective's "opinion is not relevant, and to the extent that he has an opinion, that is based on speculation." The district court overruled Inthapanya's objection: "Based upon the officer's training and experience and his function as an undercover officer in this particular transaction, the court finds that the opinion is within his personal knowledge and expertise and the objection is overruled." The prosecutor resumed the examination and the detective explained he believed the confidential informant had only one source because: (1) with the exception of the first transaction, every transaction took place in the same geographic area; (2) the heroin's packaging was...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP