State v. Ochoa
| Decision Date | 09 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 47796 |
| Parties | STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALEJANDRA MARIA OCHOA, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. D. Duff McKee, District Judge. Hon. Jerold W. Lee, Magistrate.
Decision of the district court, on intermediate appeal from the magistrate court, vacating judgment of conviction for misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter, reversed.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for appellant. Kenneth K. Jorgensen argued.
Aaron Bazzoli, Canyon County Public Defender; Jill B. Musser, Deputy Public Defender, Caldwell, for respondent. Jill B. Musser argued.
____________________
The State appeals from a decision of the district court, on intermediate appeal from the magistrate court, vacating Alejandra Maria Ochoa's judgment of conviction for misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter and remanding for a new trial. We reverse.
Ochoa made a left turn from the parking lot of a convenience store without stopping before entering the roadway. The victim, who was approaching on a motorcycle from Ochoa's left, collided with the side of Ochoa's vehicle before she completed her turn. The victim was transported by ambulance to a hospital where he died hours later. Subsequent investigation revealed the presence of controlled substances in the victim's blood and a small bag of heroin on his person. The State charged Ochoa with misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter for her role in the accident. I.C. § 18-4006. Ochoa pled not guilty.
Prior to trial, the State moved in limine to exclude evidence of the controlled substances found in the victim's blood and on his person. The magistrate court initially granted the motion as to the drugs found on the victim's person. Then, after an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate court granted the remainder of the motion, concluding that the toxicology evidence did not, by itself, indicate that the victim was impaired and was, therefore, irrelevant and substantially more prejudicial than probative. Consequently, Ochoa was barred from inquiring into whether the controlled substances in the victim's blood contributed to the accident or the medical complications resulting in the victim's death.
After the magistrate court denied a series of motions from Ochoa seeking to continue the trial, the case was tried to a jury. During trial and over a hearsay objection by Ochoa, the magistrate court allowed the State's pathologist to testify regarding the contents of medical records he reviewed that detailed the victim's injuries. The jury found Ochoa guilty, and she appealed to the district court.
On intermediate appeal, the district court vacated Ochoa's judgment of conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that the magistrate court erred in excluding the toxicology evidence, failing to grant Ochoa's final request to continue the trial, and permitting the State's pathologist to testify about the contents of the victim's medical records.1 The State appeals the district court's decision on intermediate appeal.
For an appeal from the district court, sitting in its appellate capacity over a case from the magistrate division, we review the magistrate court record to determine whether there is substantialand competent evidence to support the magistrate court's findings of fact and whether the magistrate court's conclusions of law follow from those findings. State v. Korn, 148 Idaho 413, 415, 224 P.3d 480, 482 (2009). However, as a matter of appellate procedure, our disposition of the appeal will affirm or reverse the decision of the district court. State v. Trusdall, 155 Idaho 965, 968, 318 P.3d 955, 958 (Ct. App. 2014). Thus, we review the magistrate court's findings and conclusions, whether the district court affirmed or reversed the magistrate court and the basis therefor, and either affirm or reverse the district court.
The State contends the district court erred in vacating Ochoa's judgment of conviction and remanding for a new trial by holding that evidence of the victim's blood toxicology was erroneously excluded, that Ochoa's request for a continuance was improperly denied, and that the State's pathologist should have been precluded from testifying to the contents to the victim's medical records. Ochoa responds that the district court properly vacated her judgment of conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. We hold that the district court erred in vacating Ochoa's judgment of conviction for misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter.
The State argues that the district court erred in concluding that evidence of the victim's blood toxicology was relevant and that the danger of unfair prejudice posed by the evidence did not substantially outweigh its probative value. According to the State, there was insufficient evidence for the jury to conclude, without resorting to speculation, that the presence of controlled substances in the victim's blood contributed to either the accident or the medical complications that resulted in the victim's death. Moreover, because Ochoa was allowed to present evidence that the victim was speeding and braked inefficiently just prior to the accident, the State asserts that any minimal relevance the toxicology evidence held was substantially outweighed by the risk of jury speculation and juror bias against the victim.
The decision to admit or exclude evidence falls within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Folk, 162 Idaho 620, 625, 402 P.3d 1073, 1078 (2017). Evidence relevant to a material and disputed issue concerning the crime charged is generally admissible. State v. Stewart, 161 Idaho 235, 237, 384 P.3d 999, 1001 (Ct. App. 2016). Evidence is relevant if it has anytendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. I.R.E. 401; Stewart, 161 Idaho at 237, 384 P.3d at 1001. Whether a fact is of consequence or material is determined by its relationship to the legal theories presented by the parties. State v. Johnson, 148 Idaho 664, 671, 227 P.3d 918, 925 (2010). When an expert's testimony is speculative, it is properly excluded as irrelevant. State v. Marks, 156 Idaho 559, 563, 328 P.3d 539, 543 (Ct. App. 2014). We review questions of relevance de novo. State v. Raudebaugh, 124 Idaho 758, 764, 864 P.2d 596, 602 (1993); State v. Aguilar, 154 Idaho 201, 203, 296 P.3d 407, 409 (Ct. App. 2012).
However, a trial court must exclude relevant evidence under I.R.E. 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. State v. Abdullah, 158 Idaho 386, 439, 348 P.3d 1, 54 (2015). A trial court's determination under I.R.E. 403 will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown to be an abuse of discretion. State v. Enno, 119 Idaho 392, 406, 807 P.2d 610, 624 (1991); State v. Clark, 115 Idaho 1056, 1059, 772 P.2d 263, 266 (Ct. App. 1989).
Ochoa was charged with committing vehicular manslaughter as defined under I.C. § 18-4006(3)(c):
Although the statutory text identifies no culpable mental state, this Court has interpreted I.C. § 18-4006 to require at least ordinary negligence by the defendant. State v. McNair, 141 Idaho 263, 267, 108 P.3d 410, 414 (Ct. App. 2005). Additionally, the defendant's driving must be more than a negligible or indirect cause of the victim's death. McKay v. State, 148 Idaho 567, 572, 225 P.3d 700, 705 (2010).
Prior to trial, the prosecutor moved in limine to exclude any evidence of controlled substances in the victim's blood, including methamphetamine, amphetamines and methadone,2 along with the heroin discovered on the victim's person. The prosecutor argued that the evidence was irrelevant because nothing showed how the controlled substances in the victim's blood or on his person contributed to the accident. The magistrate court granted the State's motion as to the heroin found on the victim's person, but reserved ruling on the blood toxicology evidence to give Ochoa an opportunity to present evidence showing that the controlled substances in the victim's blood contributed to the accident.
During the subsequent evidentiary hearing, the magistrate court heard testimony from Ochoa's accident reconstruction expert (a former police officer and drug recognition expert), the State's accident reconstruction expert (an active duty police officer), and the pathologist who determined the victim's cause and manner of death. Ochoa's accident reconstruction expert testified that methamphetamine can impair a driver's decision-making by distorting the perception of time and distance. Despite having never examined the victim, Ochoa's expert further testified that, in his opinion, methamphetamine was a "contributing factor" to the accident based upon the chemical's presence in the victim's blood and his driving pattern--specifically his high rate of speed; his attempt to avoid the crash by driving around the front of Ochoa's vehicle, rather than behind; and his use of only the motorcycle's rear brake. However, Ochoa's expert admitted on cross-examination that he could not determine whether the victim was impaired from only his toxicology results and that an unimpaired individual might exhibit the same driving pattern. The State's accident reconstruction expert testified that he did not know whether the victim was impaired and clarified...
To continue reading
Request your trial