State v. Owsley
Decision Date | 07 December 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 14364,14364 |
Citation | 105 Idaho 836,673 P.2d 436 |
Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kaye OWSLEY (Molinelli), Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., and Myrna A.I. Stahman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-appellant.
David H. Maguire, and D. Kirk Bybee, Pocatello, for defendant-respondent.
Kaye Owsley, the defendant herein, and her companion Robert Molinelli, were arrested and charged jointly with delivery of a controlled substance. This action was later severed into the companion cases of State v. Molinelli, and State v. Owsley, after counsel moved for separate trials. On September 22, 1981, Molinelli's counsel filed a pretrial motion in State v. Molinelli, to dismiss the charge, or in the alternative, to reduce the charge to simple possession of a controlled substance. Judge McDermott amended the information by reducing the charge as requested, and then accepted Molinelli's guilty plea to misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance.
On September 23, 1981, Owsley's counsel also moved to dismiss the case against Owsley, or in the alternative to reduce the charge to possession of a controlled substance. Also, Mr. Thomsen, deputy prosecutor for the State, urged the district court to dismiss the case in the event the court was inclined to grant defendant's motion to reduce the charge to possession. Mr. Thomsen addressed the Court as follows:
The district court held as follows:
(Emphasis added.)
On appeal, the State has requested that the decision of the district court applying non-mutual collateral estoppel be reversed and the case be remanded for further proceedings. However, the judgment of dismissal from which the State is presently appealing, is precisely the judgment the State specifically requested, or invited the court to make.
100 Idaho at 102, 593 P.2d 1006.
Similarly, in State v. Davis, 104 Idaho 523, 525, 661 P.2d 308, 310 (1983), we declined to rule on defendant's claim that the Constitution mandated a jury trial when the defendant himself had requested a court trial.
In criminal cases, a defendant may not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Dunlap
...cannot now be heard to denounce testimony that he roused. This constitutes invited error.") (quoting State v. Owsley, 105 Idaho 836, 837-38, 673 P.2d 436, 437-38 (1983)). The introduction of Dr. Brooks' report presents a far cloudier picture of invited error. As we noted in Owsley: It has l......
-
State v. Hall
...those actions are erroneous on appeal." State v. Abdullah , 158 Idaho 386, 420, 348 P.3d 1, 35 (2015) (quoting State v. Owsley , 105 Idaho 836, 837, 673 P.2d 436, 437 (1983) ). "It has long been the law in Idaho that one may not successfully complain of errors one has acquiesced in or invit......
-
State v. Lankford
...reversible." State v. Dunlap , 155 Idaho 345, 379, 313 P.3d 1, 35 (2013) (internal citations omitted) (quoting State v. Owsley , 105 Idaho 836, 838, 673 P.2d 436, 438 (1983) ). However, an appellant who did not encourage the district court to offer the specific instructions given, but merel......
-
State v. Abdullah
...inviting district court action and then successfully claiming those actions are erroneous on appeal. State v. Owsley, 105 Idaho 836, 837, 673 P.2d 436, 437 (1983). "It has long been the law in Idaho that one may not successfully complain of errors one has acquiesced in or invited. Errors co......