from the District Court of the Second Judicial District of
the State of Idaho, Latah County. Hon. Carl B. Kerrick,
judgment and the order of the district court are affirmed.
Law Office, Ltd., Boise, for appellant.
Honorable Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for
an appeal from felony convictions for first degree murder,
failure to notify coroner or law enforcement of death, and
conspiracy to commit failure to notify coroner or law
enforcement of death. The charges were brought against
Charles Capone following the disappearance of Rachael
Anderson in April of 2010. Capone was convicted of all
charges following a sixteen-day jury trial. In this appeal,
Capone challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support
his conviction and asserts that the district court erred in
the admission of certain evidence and by denying his motion
for new trial. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
and Anderson were married in September of 2009. The two
separated that December and Anderson filed for divorce.
Anderson began receiving harassing phone calls following the
separation and her car was vandalized multiple times. At the
time, Capone owned Palouse Multiple Services, a repair shop
in Moscow, Idaho. Capone repaired Anderson's car after it
was vandalized. Capone was working on Anderson's car on
Friday, April 16, 2010. At the time, Anderson was driving a
white Yukon that belonged to a friend of Capone.
drove the Yukon to Capone's shop to pick up her car.
Anderson became upset when she learned her car was not ready.
Anderson went to run some errands while Capone continued to
work on the car. Anderson bought some beer with Capone's
debit card and then, according to Capone, ran off with a man
named Vince. No one saw or heard from Anderson after her
visit with Capone. Anderson was reported missing after she
failed to show up for work the following Monday.
April 20, 2010, Capone was interviewed by the police. During
this interview, Capone admitted that he had made the
harassing phone calls to Anderson's phone. The following
day, the Anderson family's search for her led to their
discovery of the Yukon in Lewiston. Anderson's purse was
inside the vehicle.
6, 2010, Capone was arrested for a federal firearm violation
unrelated to Anderson's disappearance. While incarcerated
on this charge, Capone made several incriminating statements
to cellmates Brent Glass and Joshua Voss about his role in
an investigation that lasted for three years, on May 1, 2013,
Capone and David Stone were charged with first degree murder
and related crimes in connection with Anderson's
disappearance. Following a preliminary hearing where both
Capone and Stone were bound over on all charges, Stone
entered into a plea agreement with the State in which he
agreed to testify against Capone in exchange for dismissal of
the murder charge against him.
trial, the State filed a motion in limine regarding several
evidentiary issues. The State sought to prevent Capone from
introducing evidence of prior felony convictions to impeach
the testimony of Glass and Voss. Pursuant to Idaho Rule of
Evidence 404(b), the State also gave notice of its intent to
use evidence of a past strangulation attempt and federal
firearm crimes by Capone. After hearing argument, the
district court ruled that Glass and Voss's prior felony
convictions for burglary were not relevant to their
credibility and reserved its ruling on the admissibility of
the 404(b) evidence until trial.
trial, the State relied heavily on Stone's testimony.
Stone testified that he was at Capone's shop on April 16,
2010. Capone went outside to talk with Anderson. Stone heard
a noise and went outside to find Capone strangling Anderson.
Anderson was still moving and Stone asked Capone what he was
doing. Capone instructed Stone to get a tarp. Stone went
inside and searched for a tarp. When he came back out,
Anderson was dead. Stone testified that he and Capone wrapped
Anderson's body in the tarp and a chain and drove to
Lewiston, where they threw her body into the river from a
jury found Capone guilty of all charges. Following the
verdict, Capone learned of a statement Stone made to Tyler
Byers while the two were cellmates in July of 2013. Stone
told Byers that they would not find Anderson's body in
the river because she was not in the river. Capone filed a
motion for a new trial based on this newly discovered
information. After hearing the motion, the district court
found that the new evidence did not merit a new trial as it
was merely impeachment evidence and likely would not produce
an acquittal. Capone timely appealed his conviction and the
denial of his motion for a new trial.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court exercises free review over whether a jury was given
proper instructions." State v. Severson, 147
Idaho 694, 710, 215 P.3d 414, 430 (2009). "Generally
Idaho's appellate courts will not consider error not
preserved for appeal through an objection at trial."
State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 224, 245
P.3d 961, 976 (2010).
[W]hen an error has not been properly preserved for appeal
through objection at trial, the appellate court's
authority to remedy that error is strictly circumscribed to
cases where the error results in the defendant being deprived
of his or her Fourteenth Amendment due process right to a
fair trial in a fair tribunal.
Id. (citation omitted).
evidence is relevant is an issue of law, which we review
de novo." State v. Russo, 157
Idaho 299, 308, 336 P.3d 232, 241 (2014). "The denial of
a motion for a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion." State v. Stevens, 146 Idaho 139,
144, 191 P.3d 217, 222 (2008).
advances several arguments on appeal. Capone first argues
that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate
Stone's accomplice testimony as required by Idaho Code
section 19-2117. Next, Capone argues that the failure to
instruct the jury regarding the corroboration requirement
constitutes fundamental error. Capone next asserts that the
district court erred by admitting 404(b) evidence of
Capone's prior convictions and an alleged physical
altercation between Capone and Anderson. Capone also argues
that the district court erred when it found Glass and
Voss's felony burglary convictions were not relevant to
their credibility. Even if the individual errors are
determined to be harmless, Capone contends that the doctrine
of cumulative error requires reversal. Finally, Capone
contends that the district court erred when it denied his
motion for a new trial. These arguments will be addressed in
There was sufficient evidence to corroborate ...