State v. Wilson

• Docket Number: 48825
• Decision Date: 18 August 2023
• Parties: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARK CHARLES WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

1

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MARK CHARLES WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 48825

Supreme Court of Idaho

August 18, 2023

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Custer County. Joel E. Tingey, District Judge.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for Appellant, Mark Charles Wilson. Kimberly A. Coster argued.

Raul R. Labrador, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for Respondent, State of Idaho. Andrew V. Wake argued.

STEGNER, JUSTICE.

Mark Wilson was charged in Custer County with unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of Idaho Code section 18-3316. The charge also carried with it a persistent violator sentencing enhancement. In a bifurcated trial, a jury first found Wilson guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm. The jury then found Wilson subject to the persistent violator sentencing enhancement based on his criminal history. Wilson appealed, and his case was assigned to the Idaho Court of Appeals. Wilson argued that the State had failed to present sufficient evidence that he had been convicted of at least one previous felony at the time he possessed a firearm. Wilson further argued that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he had been convicted of two prior felonies, an essential prerequisite for the persistent violator enhancement. The Court of Appeals affirmed Wilson's conviction and the appropriateness of the sentencing enhancement. Wilson petitioned this Court for review, which we granted. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Wilson's conviction and sentence.

2

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In 2019, Mark Wilson was convicted of first degree murder for shooting his housemate, Patricia Brown, with a firearm he had borrowed from a neighbor. In a separate case (which involves Wilson's current appeal), Wilson was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of Idaho Code section 18-3316. The firearm in question was the same firearm used in the murder of Brown. Wilson waived a preliminary hearing and was bound over to district court. An Information was filed charging Wilson with unlawful possession of a firearm. Wilson pleaded not guilty. The case was set for trial.

Wilson moved for a change of venue in the unlawful possession of a firearm case, arguing that "[i]t would be hard to find a potential juror in Custer County who has not heard about the death of Patricia Brown and the arrest of Mark Wilson, and talked to someone about the case, and formed an opinion about what happened." Wilson noted that a motion to change venue had been granted in the first degree murder case and would be appropriate in this case for similar reasons. The district court denied Wilson's motion.

After Wilson was found guilty in the murder case, the State filed an Amended Information in the unlawful possession of a firearm case, this time including a persistent violator sentencing enhancement. The State alleged Wilson had committed a new felony, as a result of his alleged possession of a firearm and having been convicted of two prior felonies: (1) Battery with Intent to Commit a Serious Felony in Custer County in 2006; and (2) First Degree Murder (of Brown) in Custer County in 2019. Wilson filed another motion to change venue in the unlawful possession case, or, in the alternative, a motion to continue the trial, this time arguing that it would be difficult to find an impartial jury in Custer County due to his recent guilty verdict in the murder case. Wilson also noted that he was set to be sentenced for the murder conviction on August 8, 2019, and his trial for the unlawful possession charge was set for August 21, 2019. The district court granted the motion to change venue, ordering that the trial take place in Bonneville County. The district court also continued the unlawful possession trial until September 18, 2019, in an apparent effort to allow media attention to abate.

Wilson filed a motion to dismiss the persistent violator sentencing enhancement, arguing that the newly charged felony (unlawful possession of a firearm) and one of the prior two felonies (first degree murder) had both arisen out of the same incident. Wilson contended that because these

3

two alleged crimes had occurred as part of the same event, the State should have charged both simultaneously.

At the hearing, the district court declined to rule on Wilson's motion to dismiss without further briefing. The parties discussed the propriety of including the persistent violator enhancement in the Amended Information for an action that occurred at the same time as the murder. The State then moved to file a Second Amended Information, which the district court permitted. The State's Second Amended Information removed the murder of Brown as a prior felony as a basis for seeking the sentencing enhancement, and instead alleged that Wilson's two prior felony convictions were: (1) Battery with Intent to Commit a Serious Felony in Custer County (2006); and (2) Criminal Sexual Conduct, Second Degree in Jackson County, Michigan (1990).

In a motion in limine, Wilson admitted to "all of the material elements relating to the charge of Unlawful[] Possession of a Firearm with the exception of the element that he previously had been convicted of a felony." Wilson moved to exclude any evidence not related to his alleged prior felony convictions. The district court accepted the admission and granted Wilson's motion. Thus, the only issue for trial on the charge of felon in possession of a firearm was whether Wilson had been previously convicted of a felony. The case proceeded to a bifurcated trial. During phase one, the jury would decide whether Wilson had been convicted of at least one prior felony and was, therefore, guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm. If the jury found Wilson guilty, then the trial would proceed to its second phase, in which the jury would decide whether Wilson had been convicted of two prior felonies and would, therefore, be subject to an enhanced sentence as a persistent violator under Idaho Code section 19-2514.

During the first phase of trial, the State called Custer County Sheriff's Deputy Levi Maydole as its first and only witness. Maydole testified that Wilson had been charged with "attempted strangulation" in Custer County in 2006. The State then sought to admit a judgment of conviction for a "Mark Charles Wilson" for Battery with Intent to Commit a Serious Felony in Custer County in 2006. The district court admitted the exhibit as a certified public record over Wilson's objections asserting hearsay and lack of foundation. The State next sought to admit another "Judgment of Sentence" which evidenced a 1990 conviction of a "Mark Charles Wilson" for Criminal Sexual Conduct, 2nd Degree, from Jackson County, Michigan. The district court admitted the exhibit over the same objections by Wilson.

4

Finally, the State sought to admit an excerpt of the Michigan Penal Code, specifically Section 750.520c, Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Second Degree. Wilson objected, arguing that the copy produced by the State represented the current state of Michigan law, but that the statute had been amended multiple times since Wilson's purported conviction in 1990. The district court admitted the exhibit, stating

I think the [c]ourt's entitled to take judicial notice of state statutes, including Penal Code. I recognize that there's an issue as to weight if it doesn't cover the time period in question, but I'll let that be part of the argument that is going to the jury about the weight of the document. And [there] does not appear to be any genuine dispute that that's the current code section.

After cross-examination and re-direct examination of Maydole, the State rested. Wilson orally moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the State had "failed to show sufficient evidence to carry its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, [1] that Wilson was the same Mark Wilson convicted in 1990 in Michigan, and [2], that it was a felony." The district court denied Wilson's motion. The district court then concluded that whether the Michigan statute was a felony was a question of law for the district court to decide. Wilson's counsel asked the district court if he would be allowed to "argue to the jury that there hasn't been evidence put in that it is a felony." The district court responded, "no, you can't because I've made that finding . . . that the Michigan statute is a felony and can be the basis for finding unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon." The district court further concluded that criminal sexual conduct in the second degree "was a felony at the time of the conviction."

Wilson did not present any evidence, and the case proceeded to closing arguments. The first verdict form the jury was given asked only whether Wilson was guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm. The jury found Wilson guilty on that charge. Because the jury found Wilson guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm, the trial proceeded to its second phase regarding the persistent violator sentencing enhancement. Neither the State nor Wilson presented any additional evidence during this second phase. The jury returned a verdict finding that Wilson had been convicted of (1) Criminal Sexual Conduct, 2nd Degree, and (2) Battery with Intent to Commit a Serious Felony. In so deciding, the jury found that Wilson was a persistent violator and, as a result, subject to a sentencing enhancement.

Wilson moved for a judgment of acquittal regarding the...