State v. Denny

Summary

The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed Wade William Denny’s convictions for sexual battery of a minor child and rape. The court held that statements by an unavailable witness were admissible under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the hearsay rule because Denny manipulated the witness to prevent her from testifying, and that this finding also foreclosed his Confrontation Clause claim.

Holdings

1. The victim's statements were admissible under Idaho Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) because Denny engaged in wrongdoing intended to manipulate her into not testifying, thereby causing her unavailability as a witness.
2. The forfeiture-by-wrongdoing finding foreclosed Denny's Confrontation Clause claim.
3. Denny preserved his challenge to the admission of the statements because the district court's in limine ruling was sufficient to preserve the issue absent an express withdrawal of his objection.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by finding that Denny engaged in wrongdoing intended to cause the victim's unavailability and admitting her statements under Idaho Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5).
2. Whether admission of the victim's statements violated Denny's rights under the Confrontation Clause.
3. Whether Denny preserved his challenge to admission of the statements for appellate review.

Disposition

affirmed