State v. Wright
| Decision Date | 10 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 48927 |
| Parties | STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CORY DEMETRIUS WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Cynthia Yee-Wallace District Judge; Hon. Nancy Baskin, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction for lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen and sexual abuse of a child under sixteen years affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Elizabeth A. Allred argued.
Hon Raul Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Kenneth K. Jorgensen argued.
Corey Demetrius Wright appeals from his judgment of conviction for lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen and sexual abuse of a child under sixteen years. Wright argues the district court erred in denying his challenge to the State's exercise of a peremptory challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96 (1986); admitting Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b) evidence; denying his motion for a mistrial; and denying his I.R.E. 412 motion. Wright also asserts the State committed misconduct when it failed to fully redact the CARES interview of the victim. Additionally, Wright argues even if the alleged errors are harmless, their accumulated impact amount to cumulative error. The district court did not err and even if the court did err, any error was harmless, and Wright is not entitled to relief based on cumulative error. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
The State charged Wright with three counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508, two counts of aggravated assault, I.C. §§ 18-901(b), 18-905, two counts of sexual abuse of a child under sixteen, I.C. § 18-1506, and one count of attempted lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, I.C. §§ 18-1508, 18-306. The charges arose from alleged conduct against A.W. and A.S., Wright's daughter and his daughter's half-sister. Prior to trial, the parties filed several motions to determine the admissibility of certain evidence. The State moved to introduce evidence, pursuant to Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b), that Wright had recently been released from a seven-year prison term. The evidence included, in part, a text message conversation between Wright and Patti Stuart, A.S.'s mother and A.W.'s guardian, after Stuart confronted Wright with allegations he abused A.S. A portion of the text message conversation included Wright's response to Stuart's statement that Wright had inappropriately touched A.S., which read, in part, While the State alleged it should be able to use this statement as evidence under I.R.E. 404(b), Wright maintained the reference to "7 years" in the text message implied that Wright had previously been incarcerated and, therefore, it should be excluded.
After a hearing, the State conceded the evidence could not be introduced to show Wright had been in prison, but argued it was relevant to show motive or intent. The district court found Wright's reference to "7 years" in the text message did not explicitly state or implicitly indicate that Wright had been incarcerated during this time. Consequently, the district court held the State could introduce the challenged text message during trial as well as evidence that Wright had been away from the family for seven years. However, the district court told the State it could not introduce evidence that Wright's incarceration was the reason for the absence, or add any information to, or context for, the text message. The district court also ruled that the State could not tell the jury why Wright had been away from the family for seven years or that he was in a place where he was not around women.
Wright filed a motion to exclude A.S.'s and A.W.'s forensic interviews and other medical records from St. Luke's Children at Risk Evaluation Services (CARES), including the video of the forensic interviews (CARES interviews). Wright argued the interviews were inadmissible under I.R.E. 803(4) and 803(24) and, alternatively, the admission of the interviews would violate his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. After a hearing, the district court issued a preliminary ruling regarding the admissibility of the CARES medical records, including the CARES interviews, reserving its final ruling on the matter until trial when it would know whether the victims were testifying and could consider any other additional relevant foundational evidence. The district court found portions of A.S.'s and A.W.'s CARES interviews would likely be admissible under I.R.E. 803(4) if they pertained to a medical purpose, but the portions of the interviews that did not serve a medical purpose would likely be inadmissible. Although the district court did not order the State to redact portions of the interviews, based on the previous hearing about the text messages, the State understood the need to redact any reference to Wright's incarceration or his lack of access to females.
Wright also filed a motion pursuant to I.R.E. 412 to introduce evidence at trial that A.S. allegedly made prior false allegations of sex crimes. Wright submitted police reports from a 2015 investigation (2015 allegations) in Arizona to support his claim that A.S. had previously falsely accused a family friend of inappropriate touching. Wright argued because the police reports did not indicate that any charges were filed against the family friend, Wright demonstrated that A.S.'s 2015 allegations were false and, therefore, he should be permitted to impeach A.S. about the prior allegation at trial through cross-examination. After a hearing, the district court found that Wright had not established the 2015 allegations were false and denied Wright's motion to introduce evidence related to the 2015 allegations. Wright filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of his I.R.E. 412 motion, which the district court also denied.
The matter proceeded to trial and thirty-four potential jurors reported to serve. Each party was given approximately thirty minutes[1] for voir dire and three peremptory challenges.[2] Each party used all three of its peremptory challenges. The State used one of its peremptory challenges to strike Juror 28. Wright challenged the strike of Juror 28, arguing the State's peremptory challenge to Juror 28 was race-based and, therefore, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to Batson. The district court found the State did not execute its peremptory challenge on the basis of race and denied Wright's Batson challenge.
During its case-in-chief, the State introduced the text messages between Stuart and Wright. Wright reiterated his previous objection: allowing the jury to hear the phrase or read the text message about "7 years" implied that Wright had been incarcerated during that time. The district court overruled the objection, and the text messages were admitted. The State also introduced videos of A.S.'s and A.W.'s CARES interviews. After A.S.'s CARES interview was played for the jury, Wright moved for a mistrial. Wright argued the video was not properly redacted by the State as ordered by the district court because the video of the CARES interview included a statement by A.S. that Wright "was gone for seven years and he wasn't able to have sex with a girl for seven years," and the statement necessarily implied Wright had been incarcerated for seven years.
The district court agreed the statement at issue should have been redacted, but found the error did not justify a mistrial. The district court ordered the State to redact the statement from the video before the video went to the jury for deliberations. Further, the court informed the jury that a portion of the video exhibit had been redacted and reserved its decision on whether to give a limiting instruction regarding the video. After the State rested its case-in-chief, Wright again moved for a mistrial relying on his previous argument. The district court denied the motion. After both parties rested, the district court instructed the jury not to consider evidence that had been excluded, stricken, or redacted and not to speculate about why Wright was previously away from his family for a period of time.
The jury found Wright guilty of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen for manual-to-genital contact of A.S. and sex abuse of a child under sixteen years for grabbing A.S.'s breasts and/or buttocks. The jury was unable to reach a verdict for sexual abuse of a child for conduct relating to A.W. and found Wright not guilty of all other charges. Wright timely appeals.
Wright makes several claims on appeal, each of which is addressed below.
Wright argues the district court erred in denying his Batson challenge because the State violated his right to equal protection when it used a peremptory challenge to strike Juror 28 from the venire. Wright argues the district court's finding that the State did not strike Juror 28 with discriminatory intent is clearly erroneous because the record shows "100% of Black potential jurors were excluded; no questions were asked of the only Black juror; other jurors who were not questioned by the State were selected to serve on the jury; and the prosecutor made misrepresentations while presenting the 'race-neutral' reason for striking" Juror 28. In response, the State argues Wright's claim fails...
To continue reading
Request your trial