State v. Jones
| Decision Date | 04 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 45905 |
| Citation | 470 P.3d 1162,167 Idaho 353 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Timothy Isiah JONES, Defendant-Appellant. |
Eric Don Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for Appellant. Sally J. Cooley argued.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for Respondent. Kale D. Gans argued.
Timothy Isiah Jones appeals his judgment of conviction entered in district court. In February 2018, a jury found Jones guilty of trafficking in heroin under Idaho Code section 37-2732B(a)(6)(C) and possession of drug paraphernalia under Idaho Code section 37-2734A. On appeal, Jones argues the district court erred in admitting evidence at trial that he was on probation. He also argues the district court erred in admitting into evidence a knife found on his person when he was frisked by police officers. Finally, Jones argues the district court abused its discretion during his sentencing by imposing an excessive sentence.
On April 25, 2017, several officers from the Boise Police Department were conducting surveillance on a trailer home where they suspected a wanted fugitive was staying. The officers were also watching for drug activity, which had been reported in the area.
After obtaining permission, one of the officers took up a surveillance position inside a nearby hair salon. Through a window in the hair salon, the officer could see the front door of the trailer no more than 20 to 30 feet from his location. He observed a blue Volvo station wagon parked directly in front of the trailer. The vehicle was running and a male wearing a baseball cap was sitting in the passenger seat. The only other occupant was a pit bull in the back seat.
After a short amount of time had passed, a second man (later identified as Jones) came out of the trailer and opened the driver's door of the Volvo. He reached down underneath the front seat of the vehicle for a few seconds before returning to the trailer. A few minutes later, Jones stepped out of the trailer and yelled to the passenger. Upon being summoned, the passenger exited the vehicle and entered the trailer with Jones. Not long after entering the trailer, the passenger returned to the Volvo, reached in the same spot under the seat as Jones had, retrieved what appeared to be a small black digital scale, and went back inside the trailer. About five minutes later, Jones and the passenger emerged from the trailer, got into the Volvo, and drove away.
As Jones and the passenger drove away, multiple marked and unmarked patrol cars began tailing them at various distances. After one of the officers observed Jones speeding, another officer in a marked patrol car caught up to the Volvo and pulled it over.
As soon as Jones stopped the car, he immediately opened the driver's side door. As the uniformed officer approached the vehicle to contact Jones, he noticed the pit bull with its head hanging out the back window. Concerned about walking past the dog, the officer requested that somebody in the vehicle "grab ahold of that dog." Jones then stepped out of the vehicle with his hands near his waistband, twisting around so that his back faced the approaching officer the entire time. Jones then backed up and reached into the open window of the rear passenger door, where the dog was standing with its head hanging out the window. A second officer ordered Jones to get his hand out of the car and the first officer grabbed Jones's arm to pull him away from the car. Upon being grabbed, Jones dropped to his knees on his own. At that point, the first officer handcuffed Jones.
After walking Jones over to one of the nearby patrol cars, the first officer asked him whether he had any weapons on him. Jones replied that he did not. The officer proceeded to pat down Jones, noticing an object in Jones's right pocket. He asked Jones what was in his pocket and Jones replied that it was a knife. At that point, the officer pulled the knife out of Jones's pocket and handed it to another officer.
Meanwhile, a different officer removed the pit bull (who was friendly) from the car. The second officer, who was a K9 handler, got out his drug detection dog, which alerted on the open door of the car. The officers then searched the car, finding a black digital scale and a small amount of a substance they believed to be heroin wrapped in aluminum foil.
After searching the car, the officers learned that Jones was on probation, and had waived his Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of his probation. The officers contacted Jones's probation officer who directed them to search him pursuant to the Fourth Amendment waiver. The officers searched Jones and found a plastic bag in his underwear that contained what they suspected to be heroin. The officers arrested Jones after finding the suspected heroin. A State lab later verified that the substance in the plastic bag was 30.96 grams of heroin.
The State charged Jones with trafficking in heroin and possession of drug paraphernalia. The State indicated before trial that it intended to elicit testimony and present evidence that would show that Jones was on probation. Jones objected to any evidence or testimony of his probation being admitted, arguing the probative value of such evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The district court ruled that the probation evidence was admissible under the Idaho Rules of Evidence.
At trial, the State elicited testimony that Jones was on probation and published to the jury a recording from an officer's on-body video camera, in which the officer can be heard discussing Jones's probation with him. The district court gave the jury multiple limiting instructions related to the evidence that Jones was on probation, explaining that the evidence was only being admitted so they could understand the circumstances surrounding the stop, not for determining whether Jones had committed any crimes.
The State also moved to admit into evidence the knife found in Jones's pocket when he was patted down. Jones objected to the knife being admitted, but the district court overruled his objection, later explaining outside the presence of the jury:
The jury found Jones guilty of trafficking in heroin and possession of drug paraphernalia. The district court sentenced Jones to a term of 30 years’ imprisonment, with 15 years fixed as the mandatory minimum required for his conviction. Jones timely appealed.
This Court reviews a trial court's evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Jones, 160 Idaho 449, 450, 375 P.3d 279, 280 (2016) (citing Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr., 137 Idaho 160, 163–64, 45 P.3d 816, 819–20 (2002) ). Sentencing decisions are also reviewed using an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Matthews, 164 Idaho 605, 607, 434 P.3d 209, 211 (2019) (citing State v. McIntosh, 160 Idaho 1, 8, 368 P.3d 621, 628 (2016) ).
When this Court reviews an alleged abuse of discretion by a trial court the sequence of inquiry requires consideration of four essentials. 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.
Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856, 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018) (emphasis in original). Whether evidence is relevant is reviewed de novo. State v. Raudebaugh, 124 Idaho 758, 764, 864 P.2d 596, 602 (1993). "The determination of whether the risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence is within the discretion of the trial court." State v. Cross, 132 Idaho 667, 670, 978 P.2d 227, 230 (1999) (citing State v. Porter, 130 Idaho 772, 784, 948 P.2d 127, 139 (1997) ).
Jones argues the district court erred in admitting evidence at trial that he was on probation because it was inadmissible prior bad acts evidence under Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b).
Under the Idaho Rules of Evidence, all relevant evidence is admissible unless one of the Rules of Evidence, or another rule applicable to Idaho's courts, provides otherwise. I.R.E. 402. Thus, all the other rules of evidence governing admissibility serve as exceptions to the general rule that all relevant evidence is admissible. Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b) is one such exception.
Rule 404(b) provides that "[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character." I.R.E. 404(b)(1). Stated another way, evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other acts "is not admissible to show a defendant's criminal propensity." State v. Johnson, 148 Idaho 664, 667, 227 P.3d 918, 921 (2010) (citing State v. Sheldon, 145 Idaho 225, 227, 178 P.3d 28, 30 (2008) ). However, so long as the prosecution in a criminal case provides notice of its intent to produce...
To continue reading
Request your trial