Keppner testified the group took the cattle to Ramey's ranch, where they received a check made out to him and Bilbao for approximately 00.
Keppner cashed the check (apparently without Bilbao's endorsement) and gave the money to Hadden, who gave him ,900 she owed him and kept the rest.
Additionally, he also admitted to other inconsistencies between his preliminary hearing and trial testimony and that he was given immunity in exchange for his truthful trial testimony. Hadden contends the final clause of the instruction is an “incorrect statement of the law that unduly restricted the jury's inherent powers to judge the weight and credibility of the evidence” and, therefore, was a violation of her Sixth Amendment right to a jury determination.
In closing argument, Hadden contended the jury should disregard the testimony of Keppner and Hadden's son based on the numerous contradictions within their individual accounts and between their accounts at the preliminary hearing and at trial. Jury Instruction Hadden contends the district court committed fundamental error in giving the jury an erroneous instruction that impermissibly restricted the jury's province to weigh the credibility of witnesses and the evidence. Ordinarily, a party may not claim a jury instruction was erroneous unless the party objected to the instruction prior to the start of jury deliberations. However, even absent a timely objection to the trial court, a narrow exception exists for those issues rising to the level of fundamental error. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 228, 245 P.3d 961, 980 (2010); State v.
We review claims that a defendant's constitutional rights have been violated de novo in light of the facts of the individual case. Kellis, 148 Idaho 812, 814, 229 P.3d 1174, 1176 (Ct. The validity of a court's decision to try a case in a particular venue is tested by whether, in the totality of existing circumstances, juror exposure to pretrial publicity resulted in a trial that was not fundamentally fair. Yager, 139 Idaho at 687, 85 P.3d at 663; Hyde, 127 Idaho at 145, 898 P.2d at 76. Sheahan, 139 Idaho at 278, 77 P.3d at 967; Hall, 111 Idaho at 829, 727 P.2d at 1257. Specifically, sixty-five potential jurors were questioned, and of those, twenty-nine were individually sequestered in the judge's chambers and queried on the record as to their exposure to pretrial publicity.
He further testified that early one morning, he accompanied Hadden, her sixteen-year-old son, and her son's teenage friend in Hadden's pickup truck and trailer to a ranch in Butte County, Idaho, where they backed up to a corral and loaded twenty cattle into the trailer.Ramey testified Keppner was accompanied during the transaction by a woman and two teenage boys.During the transaction, a brand inspector came to the ranch and indicated the brand on the cattle was Bilbao's.Thus, the error was not “plain.” Accordingly, this issue is not one of fundamental error under the Perry standard that we can consider for the first time on appeal and we do not reach the merits. Venue Hadden also contends the district court erred in denying her two motions for change of venue, which resulted in a violation of her constitutional rights to a fair trial and to an impartial jury granted in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 7 of the Idaho Constitution.Specifically, she contends the district court erred in not finding the circumstances were such that there existed presumptive prejudice against her which necessitated a change a venue.