State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 12 July 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 25448.,25448. |
| Citation | 134 Idaho 590,6 P.3d 840 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Cody Miller WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
Ronaldo A. Coulter, State Appellate Public Defender; Susan R. Brindle, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Alan G. Lance, Attorney General; Karen A. Hudelson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
On appeal from his judgment of conviction for possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia, Cody Miller Williams contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial. The motion was based upon the admission of evidence that Williams had used controlled substances in the past. Because we conclude that the challenged evidence was relevant to and admissible on the drug paraphernalia charge, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a mistrial.
In the early morning hours of June 9, 1997, Officer Harold Smith of the Boise Police Department stopped Williams and a companion for jaywalking. According to Officer Smith's subsequent trial testimony, as he approached Williams, Smith could see that Williams was holding an object in his right hand and had his left hand in his pants pocket. The officer asked Williams to drop the object in his right hand and to remove his left hand from his pocket. When Williams refused to follow that instruction, the officer grabbed him and forced him to the ground. Officer Smith testified that as he was taking Williams down, he saw Williams remove a black object from his left pants pocket and throw it on the ground. Smith placed Williams under arrest for resisting and obstructing an officer and then retrieved the item that he had seen Williams remove from his pocket and throw away. This item was a small black pouch with a small spoon attached to it. Inside the pouch was a glass vial containing a white powder that was later determined to be methamphetamine. Officer Smith then searched Williams and discovered a syringe in his left front pocket. Williams was ultimately charged with possession of methamphetamine, I.C. § 37-2732(c), and possession of drug paraphernalia, I.C. § 37-2734A.
At trial, Officer Smith testified to the foregoing events, and Williams elected to testify in his defense. On direct examination, Williams denied having removed or discarded anything from his left pocket when confronted by Officer Smith, denied that the black pouch or its contents had belonged to him, and said that he first saw the pouch when officers were handling it after Williams had been arrested. On cross-examination, Williams acknowledged that he did have a syringe in his pants pocket. The following exchange then took place:
[Prosecutor]: Q: What was the syringe for? A: I have in the past used—been addicted to drugs and— Q: So when did you use drugs that day? [Defense]: Objection, Your Honor. [Witness]: I hadn't used drugs that day. [Court]: I think that the prior answer opened the door. The question is When did you use drugs that day? And I'm going to overrule the objection and allow the defendant to answer. [Witness]: I hadn't used drugs that day. [Prosecutor]: Q: But you know what methamphetamine is, don't you? A: Yes, I do. Form of speed. Q: Have you used methamphetamine? [Defense]: Objection, Your Honor. [Court]: I'll overrule the objection. [Witness]: I haven't used methamphetamine since I was a juvenile. [Prosecutor]: But you have used it? [Defense]: Objection, Your Honor. This is totally improper. It's not anything—I'd like to be heard outside the presence please. [Witness]: I do believe I just answered that question. [Court]: I'll tell you what, I'm going to overrule the objection ... because of the nature of the two charges. I think it's relevant and I think that the answer that the defendant gives is up to him. So I'm going to overrule the objection. And I believe the question was—[prosecutor], if you'd please restate. [Prosecutor]: The question was: You have used methamphetamine, haven't you? A: Yes, I have.
At the conclusion of the evidence, defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the ground that the evidence elicited by the prosecutor about Williams' prior drug use was inadmissible under Idaho Rule of Evidence 404. The trial court denied the motion, stating that the evidence to which defense counsel had objected was relevant "to knowledge on the drug paraphernalia charge." The jury returned a verdict finding Williams guilty on both charges.
On appeal, Williams challenges the denial of his motion for a mistrial. He contends that a mistrial was warranted because the evidence of his prior drug use was admitted in violation of I.R.E. 404.
Upon the motion of a defendant, a mistrial may be declared "when there occurs during the trial an error or legal defect in the proceedings ... which is prejudicial to the defendant and deprives the defendant of a fair trial." Idaho Criminal Rule 29.1(a). Our standard for reviewing the denial of a motion for a mistrial has been expressed as follows:
[T]he question on appeal is not whether the trial judge reasonably exercised his discretion in light of circumstances existing when the mistrial motion was made. Rather, the question must be whether the event which precipitated the motion for mistrial represented reversible error when viewed in the context of the full record. Thus, where a motion for mistrial has been denied in a criminal case, the "abuse of discretion" standard is a misnomer. The standard, more accurately stated, is one of reversible error. Our focus is upon the continuing impact on the trial of the incident that triggered the mistrial motion. The trial judge's refusal to declare a mistrial will be disturbed only if that incident, viewed retrospectively, constituted reversible error.
State v. Urquhart, 105 Idaho 92, 95, 665 P.2d 1102, 1105 (Ct.App.1983). See also State v. Shepherd, 124 Idaho 54, 57, 855 P.2d 891, 894 (Ct.App.1993)
. Here, the event that precipitated the mistrial motion was the allowance of the prosecutor's questions asking Williams about his prior experience with controlled substances. Therefore, we examine the admissibility of the evidence thus elicited.
According to Williams, the challenged testimony was character evidence inadmissible under I.R.E. 404(a) and was also improper evidence of other crimes that should have been excluded under I.R.E. 404(b). Rule 404(a) provides that, subject to exceptions that are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Yakovac, Docket No. 32033 (Idaho 11/3/2006)
...in the past was relevant to show specific intent to use drug paraphernalia to inject a controlled substance. See State v. Williams, 134 Idaho 590, 6 P.3d 840 (Ct. App. 2000). Unlike the specific intent crime addressed in Williams, possession of a controlled substance in violation of I.C. § ......
-
State v. Law
...the trial court's balancing of the probative value of the evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice." State v. Williams, 134 Idaho 590, 592, 6 P.3d 840, 842 (Ct.App.2000). The district court held that the testimony of Law's daughter was admissible to show intent, absence of mistake, a......
-
State v. Folk, Docket No. 39622
...error. Evidence of prior bad acts may be relevant to prove the intent element of the charged offense. E.g., State v. Williams, 134 Idaho 590, 592, 6 P.3d 840, 842 (Ct. App. 2000). Nonetheless, evidence of other acts must be relevant to a material disputed issue concerning the crime charged,......
-
State v. Betancourt, Docket No. 37139
...knowledge of the methamphetamine discovered in the passenger's compartment of the vehicle. We agree. See State v. Williams, 134 Idaho 590, 592-93 6 P.3d 840, 842-43 (Ct. App. 2000) (holding that evidence of prior methamphetamine use was relevant to the question of defendant's intent to use ......