State of Idaho v. Montrez Lushon Mayberry

Summary

The Idaho Court of Appeals held that the physical assaults alleged in this case did not constitute the type of “nonconsensual contact” required to establish a course of conduct under Idaho’s stalking statute. It reversed the first-degree stalking conviction, vacated that portion of the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming the denial of the defendant’s Idaho Criminal Rule 35 sentence-reduction motion. The court did not reach the challenge to admission of evidence concerning the no-contact order because the stalking conviction was vacated.

Holdings

1. For purposes of Idaho Code § 18-7906(2)(c), nonconsensual contact includes attempted or completed communication, continued presence, or surveillance, but does not include physical contact that is already criminalized by other statutes. The State therefore failed to prove that Mayberry engaged in the type of nonconsensual contact required for first degree stalking.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mayberry's Rule 35 motion to reduce his sentence for domestic battery with traumatic injury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Mayberry engaged in a course of nonconsensual contact constituting first degree stalking under Idaho Code §§ 18-7905(1)(a) and 18-7906.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Idaho Rule of Evidence 403 by admitting evidence of the no-contact order.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Mayberry's Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion to reduce his sentence for domestic battery with traumatic injury.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded