State v. Terry
| Decision Date | 29 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 12365,12365 |
| Citation | 561 P.2d 1318,98 Idaho 285 |
| Parties | The STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Patrick A. TERRY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Ellison M. Matthews, of Matthews, Lee & Wilson, Boise, for defendant-appellant.
Wayne L. Kidwell, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Deputy Atty. Gen., L. Mark Riddoch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.
The facts of the present case are not disputed. Defendant-appellant Patrick Terry was tried before the Magistrate Division of the Fourth Judicial District on the charge of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. The state called James Thompson, one of the arresting police officers, to testify at trial. A portion of his testimony is challenged on appeal. When asked to describe the defendant's speech at the time of the arrest, Officer Thompson replied, The defendant's counsel objected and asked for a mistrial. The trial court refused the objection. The district court upheld the trial court's decision and this appeal followed.
Appellant argues on appeal that Officer Thompson's reference to prior experience with the defendant was prejudicial in that it amounted to a comment on the defendant's prior criminal conduct. We do not agree.
An identical issue came before the Arizona Supreme Court in State v. Finn, 111 Ariz. 271, 528 P.2d 615 (1970). The arresting officer in that case testified that he had known the defendant 'from before.' On appeal the defendant-appellant contended that the officer's testimony was 'a clear suggestion that the appellant had previous substantial involvement of a criminal nature of which the (officer) was aware.' The Arizona Supreme Court rejected appellant's argument. After citing the general rule in Arizona that evidence of prior criminal activity is inadmissible, the Court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Giles
...ruling admitting such evidence will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing that the court abused its discretion. State v. Terry, 98 Idaho 285, 561 P.2d 1318 (1977); State v. Thomas, 94 Idaho 430, 489 P.2d 1310 As was the case in Hester, the trial court here did not abuse its discretion ......
-
State v. Missamore
...of that discretion, we will not disturb its determination."); State v. Tierney, 109 Idaho 474, 708 P.2d 879 (1985); State v. Terry, 98 Idaho 285, 561 P.2d 1318 (1977). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that evidence of harassment was relevant and admissible. Sun Valley ......
-
Kozlowski v. Rush
...or biophysical testing. We review challenges to evidentiary rulings under the abuse of discretion standard. State v. Terry, 98 Idaho 285, 287, 561 P.2d 1318, 1320 (1977). The court struck the testimony because it found that the Skibas' expert had not familiarized himself with and did not es......
-
State v. Zimmerman
...be reversed only when there has been an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hester, 114 Idaho 688, 760 P.2d 27 (1988); State v. Terry, 98 Idaho 285, 561 P.2d 1318 (1977). In reviewing the decision of the trial court, we look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the statement and ......