Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Melanson, Judge
2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 589
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Judgment of conviction for grand theft, affirmed.
Nathan Tood Banbury appeals from his judgment of conviction for grand theft. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
The state charged Banbury with grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1) and 18-2407(1)(b)(1), based upon the allegation that he stole a car. At trial, the owner of a car dealership testified that Banbury visited the dealership, inquired about a white Cadillac, and asked for the keys. The owner testified that he informed Banbury he could not take the car for a drive, but gave Banbury the keys so he could look inside. The owner also testified that, after he gave Banbury the keys, he returned to his office, looked out the window, and noticed that the car was gone. The owner called the police and provided a description of the car and of Banbury. The owner testified that, after a friend contacted him to let him know that the friend had located the car, the owner went to the location the friend described. The location was Banbury's residence. The owner testified that he identified the car as the one taken from his dealership, although the advertising license plates and price markings had been removed, and called the police.
Two officers testified at trial. The first officer testified that, when he arrived at Banbury's residence, he noticed that the car had fresh puddles underneath it and looked like it had just been washed. The officer testified that the vehicle identification number on the car matched the vehicle identification number he received from the owner of the car dealership. The second officer made the initial contact with Banbury at his residence and both officers proceeded to conduct a security check. The first officer testified that, as Banbury sat on a couch in his living room, the officer observed pieces of a placard from the owner's dealership in a garbage can and a partial placard, an as-is warranty slip, and scissors sitting on the floor. The second officer testified that he spoke with Banbury following the provision of Miranda*fn1 warnings. The following exchange then took place between the prosecutor and the second officer:
[Prosecutor] While you were there, did you recover the keys to the car?
[Officer] I did. I asked [Banbury] for the keys, and he gave them to me.
[Prosecutor] When, when he gave you the keys, were they on a key ring?
[Officer] They were on a key ring with an additional key that didn't appear to be a GM key.
[Prosecutor] Did you ask him about the additional key?
[Officer] I did. It looked like a house key, and so I just--you know, obviously didn't belong to a Cadillac; and I asked him, "You know what the additional key was for?" ...