State v. Kralovec
| Decision Date | 23 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 44250 |
| Citation | 388 P.3d 583,161 Idaho 569 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Thomas John KRALOVEC, Defendant-Appellant. |
Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett, LLP, Boise, for appellant. Dennis Benjamin argued.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Kenneth K. Jorgensen argued.
Thomas Kralovec appeals from his judgment of conviction for one count of battery on a correctional officer. I.C. §§ 18–915(2) and 18–903. We affirm.
On February 6, 2014, Kralovec was arrested by Boise City Officer Tad Miller for public intoxication and resisting and obstructing arrest. While he was being transported to jail, Kralovec was antagonistic. He cursed, insulted, and threatened Officer Miller. Upon arrival at the jail, Kralovec was met by Deputies Gary Ambrosek, Ralph Thompson, Luis Torres, and Richard Michaelson and taken to a holding cell.
Kralovec remained combative and non-compliant during the intake process. The four deputies took turns restraining Kralovec to search him and remove his handcuffs so that he could be left alone in the cell. The deputies placed Kralovec on a concrete bench in the cell in a prone position with his legs in a "figure four leg trap" with his face to the wall. At some point during the search, Kralovec's right leg came free and kicked out, knocking a microphone loose from the clip on Deputy Ambrosek's shirt and allegedly striking Deputy Michaelson in the shoulder. The incident was recorded by a camera in the holding cell. It is undisputed that Deputy Michaelson's shoulder was injured at some point during the incident; however, the parties disagree as to the cause of the injury.
On April 30, 2014, the State filed an information charging Kralovec with one count of battery on a peace officer under Idaho Code sections 18–915(3) and 18–903(a) for striking Deputy Michaelson. On October 3, 2014, the State filed an amended information charging Kralovec with battery on a correctional officer in violation of Idaho Code sections 18–915(2) and 18–903.
On July 2, 2014, the State filed notice of its intent to introduce audio evidence of Kralovec's arrest and transport to jail to show Kralovec's knowledge and intent pursuant to Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b). Kralovec objected, arguing that the evidence was either not relevant, or its probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The district court concluded that the evidence was res gestae evidence temporally connected with the alleged battery and had a tendency to explain Kralovec's alleged misbehavior during the booking process. The district court further concluded that the evidence was admissible under Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b) as it was relevant to Kralovec's intent.
Kralovec's jury trial took place on October 6–8, 2014. Prior to the trial, Judge Jason Scott had presided over the proceedings; however, Senior Judge Renae Hoff presided over the trial. During the trial, the State presented testimony from Officer Miller and Deputies Michaelson, Torres, Thompson, and Ambrosek, photographic and video evidence taken from the holding cell, and an audio recording from Kralovec's transport to the jail. The jury found Kralovec guilty of battery on Deputy Michaelson.
Following the jury trial, a hearing was held on October 24, 2014, before Judge Scott. The record does not contain a transcript of the hearing, but the court minutes show that Kralovec requested "for Judge Hoff to do sentencing or in alternative this Court listen to the audio of the [jury trial]." The State responded that "[a]ll info this Court needs will be in PSI, [Defendant] can argue at sentencing any evidence." The district court denied the motion to have Judge Hoff handle the sentencing hearing; however, the court indicated that Kralovec was free to file a written motion if he wanted. The court minutes are silent as to the disposition of Kralovec's request for Judge Scott to listen to the audio recordings of the jury trial.
Sentencing was held on November 14, 2014. Prior to receiving arguments from the parties, Judge Scott inquired if either party wished to submit any further evidence regarding sentencing. Neither party submitted additional evidence. The district court imposed a suspended five-year sentence, with one year fixed, and placed Kralovec on probation for five years. After the sentence was pronounced, Kralovec's counsel inquired as to the materials Judge Scott had reviewed prior to sentencing. Judge Scott explained:
Kralovec timely appealed and the case was assigned to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed Kralovec's judgment of conviction and sentence. This Court granted Kralovec's petition for review.
"When this Court hears a case on a petition for review from the Court of Appeals, it ‘gives serious consideration to the Court of Appeals' views, but will review the trial court's decision directly,’ and ‘acts as if the appeal was directly from the trial court's decision.’ " State v. Hansen , 156 Idaho 169, 173, 321 P.3d 719, 723 (2014) (quoting State v. Carter , 155 Idaho 170, 172, 307 P.3d 187, 189 (2013) ). This Court "will uphold a judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict so long as there is substantial evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could conclude that the prosecution proved all essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Severson , 147 Idaho 694, 712, 215 P.3d 414, 432 (2009) (citing State v. Sheahan , 139 Idaho 267, 285, 77 P.3d 956, 974 (2003) ).
On appeal, Kralovec contends: (1) the State failed to present constitutionally sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the State sustained its burden of proving the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the district court abused its discretion when it admitted audio evidence of Kralovec's encounter with Officer Miller as res gestae and under Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b) ; and (3) the sentencing judge abused his discretion by refusing to review the trial transcripts and exhibits prior to sentencing. We address these issues in turn.
Kralovec argues his conviction must be vacated and a judgment of acquittal entered because the State failed to carry its burden of proof and failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that Kralovec kicked or even touched Deputy Michaelson. Kralovec argues that the video from the holding cell clearly shows that Kralovec did not kick Deputy Michaelson in direct contradiction of Deputy Michaelson's testimony. Therefore, the State did not present substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found that Kralovec committed battery beyond a reasonable doubt.
Kralovec also contends that the State failed to present any proof that Kralovec intentionally kicked Deputy Michaelson. Kralovec argues that because the deputies had Kralovec's legs in a trap, the State did not and could not present substantial evidence that any movement of Kralovec's legs out of the trap was willfully or intentionally directed toward Deputy Michaelson.
Kralovec's arguments are predicated on his interpretation of what the video evidence shows. Our review of the video evidence leads us to conclude that it is entirely unhelpful in determining whether or not Kralovec's foot struck Deputy Michaelson's shoulder during the incident. Certainly, the video shows some motion and struggling on Kralovec's part and movement of Deputy Michaelson's body; however, during the vast majority of the relevant portion of the video recording, Deputy Michaelson's body is situated between the camera and Kralovec. In short, we are unable to agree with Kralovec's contention that the video recording directly and conclusively refutes Deputy Michaelson's testimony.
Kralovec's contention that the State failed to present any proof that Kralovec intentionally kicked Deputy Michaelson is similarly unpersuasive. Idaho Code section 18–903(a) defines battery as any: "Willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another." I.C. § 18–903(a). Idaho Code section 18–101(1) provides: I.C. § 18–101(1).
Here, the State presented more than just the video evidence. Deputy Michaelson testified that Kralovec kicked him in the shoulder. Further, the State presented corroborating testimony from Officer Miller, Deputies Torres, Thompson, and Ambrosek, as well as photographic and video evidence taken from the holding cell and audio evidence from Kralovec's transport to the jail. Kralovec makes no other attempt to explain or refute the testimony or evidence other than through his interpretation of the video. We conclude that Kralovec is merely asking this Court to substitute its own opinion on the credibility and weight of the evidence for that of the jury. We decline to do so.
On appeal, where a defendant stands convicted, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial