from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State
of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Davis F. VanderVelde, District
of conviction for domestic abuse with traumatic injury and
being a persistent violator, affirmed.
D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P.
Anderson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for
Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; John C. McKinney,
Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Carlos Maldonado appeals from his judgment of conviction for
domestic abuse with traumatic injury and being a persistent
violator. Maldonado argues that the district court erred in
admitting hearsay testimony and denying his motion for
mistrial. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
was charged with domestic battery with traumatic injury, I.C.
§§ 18-903(a) and 18-918(2), and a persistent
violator enhancement, I.C. § 19-2514. During trial, the
State sought to introduce statements made by the victim to
the responding emergency medical technician (EMT) and the
treating physician's assistant (PA) identifying Maldonado
as the assailant. The State argued that these statements were
admissible pursuant to I.R.E. 803(4)--statements made for
purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. The district
court admitted the statements over Maldonado's objection.
second day of trial, the State inadvertently introduced the
unredacted version of an audio exhibit that included a
statement by the victim to a detective that Maldonado had
been in prison and did not like to be disrespected. Maldonado
moved for a mistrial, arguing that the reference to him
having previously spent time in prison was prejudicial. The
district court denied the motion, finding that, although the
statement was inadmissible, the error could be remedied by
striking the exhibit and instructing the jury to disregard
it. Subsequent to this remedial action, the State recalled a
detective and admitted the redacted version of the audio
exhibit. The jury found Maldonado guilty of domestic battery
with traumatic injury and the persistent violator
enhancement. The district court entered judgment and imposed
a unified twenty-year sentence, with six years determinate.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
determination whether to admit evidence under one of the
recognized hearsay exceptions is generally a matter that is
left to the broad discretion of the trial court. State v.
Nelson, 131 Idaho 210, 215, 953 P.2d 650, 655 (Ct. App.
1998). When a trial court's discretionary decision is
reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a
multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court
correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion, acted
within the boundaries of such discretion, acted consistently
with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices
before it, and reached its decision by an exercise of reason.
State v. Herrera, ___ Idaho ___, ____, 429 P.3d 149,
district court's denial of a motion for mistrial is
reviewed for reversible error. State v. Urquhart,
105 Idaho 92, 95, 665 P.3d 1102, 1105 (Ct. App. 1983).
Admission of ...