Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Idaho v. Javier Aguilar

November 9, 2012

STATE OF IDAHO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
JAVIER AGUILAR,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Bradly S. Ford, District Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Melanson, Judge

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

2012 Opinion No. 58

Judgment of conviction and aggregate sentence of life imprisonment, with a minimum period of confinement of twenty-one years, for three counts of lewd conduct, affirmed.

Javier Aguilar appeals from his judgment of conviction and sentences for three counts of lewd conduct with a minor under the age of sixteen. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE

In 2010, a jury found Aguilar guilty of three counts of lewd conduct with a minor under the age of sixteen. I.C. § 18-1508. The district court imposed a unified term of life imprisonment, with a minimum period of confinement of seven years, for each count. The district court also ordered that the sentences be served consecutively. Thus, the district court sentenced Aguilar to an aggregate term of life imprisonment, with a minimum period of confinement of twenty-one years. Aguilar appeals.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Relevant Evidence

Aguilar argues that the district court erred by allowing the jury to hear testimony from a counselor concerning the long-term impact that sexual abuse can have on victims. Specifically, Aguilar contends that the testimony was irrelevant and, therefore, inadmissible pursuant to I.R.E. 401 and I.R.E. 402. Pursuant to I.R.E. 401, relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

I.R.E. 402. We review questions of relevance de novo. State v. Raudebaugh, 124 Idaho 758, 764, 864 P.2d 596, 602 (1993).

The state called the counselor as its first witness at trial. The following colloquy took place:

[PROSECUTOR] Can you talk a little bit about the long-term ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.