State v. Svelmoe
| Decision Date | 27 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 43181 |
| Citation | 160 Idaho 327,372 P.3d 382 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Troy Miles SVELMOE, Defendant–Appellant. |
John M. Adams, Kootenai County Public Defender, Coeur d'Alene, for appellant. Jay W. Logsdon argued.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Theodore S. Tollefson argued.
J. JONES, Chief Justice Appellant Troy Svelmoe appeals a felony conviction for driving under the influence ("DUI"). Svelmoe was pulled over in Post Falls, Idaho, for vehicle equipment violations. The officer suspected that Svelmoe was driving under the influence and asked Svelmoe to perform three field sobriety tests. Svelmoe failed two of the tests and was placed under arrest. The officer then asked Svelmoe to take a breath alcohol test. Svelmoe agreed and provided two breath samples. The results of the breath tests showed an alcohol concentration (BAC) of .108 and .106.
The State filed a criminal complaint charging Svelmoe with felony DUI. At the preliminary hearing, the State did not present the results of the breath tests, and the magistrate judge dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause to support the charge. The prosecution then refiled the criminal complaint and introduced the results of the breath tests at a second preliminary hearing. The judge concluded that the prosecution presented substantial evidence to support the charge.
At the district court, Svelmoe filed a motion to dismiss the DUI charge, a motion to suppress the breath test results, and a motion in limine to exclude the breath test results. The district court denied all three of Svelmoe's motions, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found Svelmoe guilty. Svelmoe appealed, challenging the district court's denial of his pretrial motions.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 9, 2014, Svelmoe was subject to a traffic stop in Post Falls, Idaho, for vehicle equipment violations. Another officer was called to the scene to conduct a DUI investigation. The officer noted that Svelmoe had bloodshot eyes and smelled of alcohol. The officer then conducted three field sobriety tests, of which Svelmoe failed two. Svelmoe was placed under arrest for DUI. After Svelmoe was placed under arrest, the officer read Svelmoe the ALS advisory form and asked Svelmoe to take a breath alcohol test.1 Svelmoe agreed and provided two breath samples. Testing of the two samples revealed a BAC of .108 and .106.
Because Svelmoe had two prior DUI convictions, the State charged him with felony DUI. A preliminary hearing was held on August 21, 2014. At that hearing, the State did not present the results of the breath tests, but instead relied on the officers' testimony and the results of the field sobriety tests. According to the State, it did not have the necessary certified documentation to introduce the breath test results into evidence at that time. The magistrate judge held that the State did not establish probable cause to support the charge and dismissed the case.
On September 30, 2014, the State refiled the complaint charging Svelmoe with felony DUI. Svelmoe filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the refiling of the complaint violated his due process rights. A preliminary hearing was held on October 31, 2014. This time the State introduced the breath test results. The magistrate judge concluded that the State presented substantial evidence to support the felony DUI charge and bound the matter to the district court. The magistrate judge declined to rule on Svelmoe's motion to dismiss, concluding that it was a matter to be decided by the district court.
Svelmoe refiled his motion to dismiss with the district court. Additionally, Svelmoe filed a motion to suppress the results of the breath tests, alleging that they were obtained through an unlawful search and seizure. Svelmoe also filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of the breath tests, alleging that the standard operating procedures ("SOPs") promulgated by the Idaho State Police were unreliable and were void for noncompliance with the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act ("IDAPA"). The district court held a hearing on February 11, 2015, and denied all three of Svelmoe's motions.
The case proceeded to a jury trial on February 17, 2015. At trial, the State introduced the results of the breath tests. Prior to introducing the breath test results, the State presented testimony from the arresting officer, who described his prior training using the Intoxilyzer 5000, and the procedures he followed when administering the breath tests. He additionally testified that the Intoxilyzer 5000 used on May 9, 2014, was properly calibrated and passed all of the internal tests to ensure that it was functioning properly. Svelmoe objected to the introduction of the breath test results based on lack of foundation. The district court overruled Svelmoe's objection and admitted the test results into evidence. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Judgment was entered on April 8, 2015. Svelmoe timely appealed, challenging the district court's denial of his pretrial motions.
II.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
1. Whether the district court erred in denying Svelmoe's motion to dismiss.
2. Whether the district court erred in denying Svelmoe's motion to suppress.
3. Whether the district court erred in denying Svelmoe's motion in limine.
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Questions regarding a court's jurisdiction and due process are questions of law over which this Court exercises free review. State v. Kavajecz , 139 Idaho 482, 483, 80 P.3d 1083, 1084 (2003) ; Idaho Historic Pres. Council, Inc. v. City Council of City of Boise , 134 Idaho 651, 654, 8 P.3d 646, 649 (2000).
The Court reviews the denial of a motion to suppress using a bifurcated standard. State v. Purdum , 147 Idaho 206, 207, 207 P.3d 182, 183 (2009). "This Court will accept the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous." Id. "However, this Court may freely review the trial court's application of constitutional principles in light of the facts found." Id.
"The trial court's judgment concerning admission of evidence shall only be disturbed on appeal when there has been a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Perry , 150 Idaho 209, 218, 245 P.3d 961, 970 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion the Court considers:
(1) [W]hether the trial court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the trial court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (3) whether the trial court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.
Id. ).
IV.
ANALYSIS
Svelmoe contends that this Court should reverse the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss on two grounds. First, Svelmoe argues that the magistrate judge erred in concluding that he did not have jurisdiction to consider Svelmoe's motion to dismiss. Second, Svelmoe argues that the district court erred in ruling that Svelmoe's due process rights were not violated by the State's refiling of the criminal complaint.
Idaho Code section 1–2208(3) provides that, subject to the rules promulgated by this Court, a district judge may assign the following criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings to magistrates:
The magistrate judge can be assigned the trial, related hearings, and sentencing in a felony proceeding "when approved by order of the Supreme Court upon an application by the administrative judge of a judicial district." I.C.R. 2.2(c)(1).
At the preliminary hearing, the magistrate judge concluded that his jurisdiction was limited to considering whether the State had established probable cause to support the felony DUI charge. The magistrate reasoned that if he determined that there was probable cause, the matter would be bound over to the district court and that would be the appropriate time and place for Svelmoe to move to dismiss the complaint. In fact, Svelmoe did refile his motion to dismiss, and he obtained a ruling from the district court.
We need not reach the question of whether the magistrate judge had jurisdiction to consider Svelmoe's motion to dismiss. Idaho Criminal Rule 52 provides that "[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded." Any error that the magistrate allegedly committed in declining to hear Svelmoe's motion to dismiss was inconsequential. Svelmoe was able to file his motion with the district court and obtain a ruling there. Svelmoe has failed to allege how his rights were affected by having the district court, rather than the magistrate, rule on his motion to dismiss. Therefore, we decline to address this issue on appeal.
The refiling of a criminal charge following a dismissal at a preliminary hearing is not a per se violation of the due process clauses of the Idaho and U.S. Constitutions. Stockwell v. State , 98 Idaho 797, 805–07, 573 P.2d 116, 124–26 (1977). However, refiling a criminal complaint may violate a defendant's due process rights where it is "done for the purpose of...
To continue reading
Request your trial