from the District Court of the First Judicial District of the
State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Cynthia K.C. Meyer, District
judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Appellate Public Defender's office, Boise, for appellant.
Brian R. Dickson argued.
Attorney General's office, Boise, for respondent.
Theodore S. Tollefson argued.
Allen Jeske (Jeske) appeals from his conviction of felony
driving under the influence (DUI). Jeske contends the
district court erred when it made two evidentiary rulings:
the first when it allowed the deputy prosecutor to comment on
his refusal to consent to a blood draw to test it for
alcohol; the second regarding testimony of uncharged
misconduct. Jeske also alleges the district court erred when
it allowed the State to amend the charges against him the
morning of the trial and in refusing to give a requested jury
instruction. Finally, Jeske asserts that the cumulative error
doctrine requires his conviction to be vacated. For the
reasons set forth in this opinion, we reject Jeske's
arguments and affirm the district court's judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
before midnight on January 12, 2016, a Coeur d'Alene
police officer, Caleb Hutchison (Officer Hutchison), noticed
a Dodge Dakota pickup traveling on Sherman Avenue with only
one working headlight. Officer Hutchison effected a traffic
stop. The pickup was being operated by Jeske. When Officer
Hutchison got to the truck, Jeske's response was delayed.
asked for his driver's license, Jeske told Officer
Hutchison he did not have one. When asked why not, he rubbed
his thumb and forefinger together. Jeske fumbled with other
paperwork, dropping the truck's registration at one
to Officer Hutchison: Jeske's speech was marked by
slurring and mumbling; Jeske's eyes were glassy and he
had what the officer described as a "thousand yard"
stare; and, he had a lethargic expression and was
Officer Hutchison suspected Jeske of driving under the
influence, he asked Jeske to step out of the truck and
perform field sobriety tests. Jeske ultimately complied with
the request to get out of the truck; however, he refused to
comply with the field sobriety tests. During his interaction
with Jeske, Officer Hutchison purportedly noticed the slight
odor of alcohol and that Jeske was unsteady on his feet.
After continued refusal to perform the tests, Jeske turned
away from the officer, placed his hands behind his back, and
asked the officer to place him under arrest. At that time,
the officer arrested Jeske and drove him to the Kootenai
jail, Officer Hutchison asked Jeske to perform a breath
alcohol test. Jeske refused. After refusing to take the
breath test, Officer Hutchison asked Jeske if he would submit
to a blood test. Jeske remained silent in response to the
officer's request. Upon receiving no response, the
officer obtained a search warrant from a magistrate judge.
The warrant authorized a blood draw, which was effected by a
nurse at Kootenai Medical Center.
January 13, 2016, the State filed a criminal complaint,
charging Jeske with felony driving under the influence in
violation of Idaho Code section 18-8004. The Criminal
Complaint alleged that Jeske had been impaired while driving
under the influence of alcohol. No mention was made of the
impending results of the blood draw Jeske had undergone
earlier that same day. On February 5, 2016, Jeske waived his
preliminary hearing. On February 8, 2016, the State filed the
original Information, charging Jeske with felony DUI under an
impairment theory, making no mention of the blood draw
performed on January 13. The blood draw results were received
by the State on February 24, 2016. The test showed
Jeske's blood alcohol content to be 0.182, more than
twice the per se limit of .08. The State shared the
results of the test with Jeske's counsel the same day.
6, 2016, the morning of Jeske's jury trial, the State
moved to amend the Criminal Information to include the
per se theory, to allege Jeske had been operating a
motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content above the
statutorily proscribed level of 0.08. The district court granted
the motion to amend and the case proceeded to trial that same
jury found Jeske guilty of driving under the influence. In a
proceeding following the jury's verdict, the judge
concluded Jeske had been found guilty of felony DUI twice
within the preceding fifteen years, which rendered the DUI he
committed on January 12, 2016, a felony. In addition, the
district court found Jeske's sentence was also subject to
filed a timely appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
district court's judgment and Jeske's conviction.
Jeske petitioned this Court for review which we granted.
ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL
A. Whether the district court violated Jeske's Fourth
Amendment rights when it allowed evidence and argument
regarding Jeske's refusal to consent to a blood draw.
B. Whether the district court abused its discretion by
granting the State's motion to amend the Information on
the morning of trial.
C. Whether the district court erred by refusing to give
Jeske's requested jury instruction regarding impairment.
D. Whether the district court abused its discretion when it
admitted evidence of other uncharged misconduct.
E. Whether the cumulative error doctrine requires reversal of
STANDARD OF REVIEW
reviewing a case on petition for review from the Court of
Appeals this Court gives due consideration to the decision
reached by the Court of Appeals, but directly reviews the
decision of the trial court." State v.
Schmierer, 159 Idaho 768, 770, 367 P.3d 163, 165 (2016).
"Constitutional issues are pure questions of law over
which this Court exercises free review." Estrada v.
State, 143 Idaho 558, 561, 149 P.3d 833, 836 (2006). The
decision to permit an amendment to a charging document is a
matter within the discretion of the trial court. State v.
Severson, 147 Idaho 694, 708, 215 P.3d 414, 428 (2009).
reviewing the trial court's evidentiary rulings, this
Court applies an abuse of discretion standard. State v.
Anderson, 162 Idaho 610, 614, 402 P.3d 1063, 1067
(2017). When reviewing a lower court's decision for an
abuse of discretion, this Court must analyze "whether
the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of
discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its
discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards
applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4)
reached its decision by the exercise of reason."
Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856, 863, 421
P.3d 187, 194 (2018) (citing Hull v. Giesler, 163
Idaho 247, 250, 409 P.3d 827, 830 (2018)).
Any potential error in allowing evidence regarding
Jeske's refusal to allow a warrantless blood draw was
Jeske's interaction with Officer Hutchison, he was asked
to undergo the following tests: field sobriety tests; a
breath alcohol test; and, after having refused to undergo the
first two, a blood alcohol test. During the last, he remained
first day of trial, Jeske moved to have various portions of
the officer's video recording redacted. Specifically,
Jeske sought to have his refusal to engage in the tests
sought by Officer Hutchison redacted. The trial judge
rejected his efforts stating, "the refusals to engage in
the field sobriety test [sic], the breathalyzer, and to
submit to a blood draw goes to consciousness of
guilt." (Italics added.)
contends on appeal that his Fourth Amendment rights were
violated when the trial judge allowed testimony to be
presented regarding his refusal to submit to a blood draw.
Jeske relies on State v. Christiansen, 144 Idaho
463, 470, 163 P.3d 1175, 1182 (2007) for the proposition that
a prosecutor may ...