State v. Dalrymple, 144 Idaho 628

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed David Allen Dalrymple's convictions and sentences for lewd conduct with a child, sexual abuse of a child, kidnapping, and related offenses. The court held that Dalrymple knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel based on the totality of the circumstances, including extensive pretrial Faretta warnings. The court also rejected his claims concerning compulsory process, confrontation, judicial comments, and excessive sentencing.

Holdings

1. Dalrymple knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
2. The district court did not impermissibly coerce Dalrymple by requiring him to choose between proceeding with counsel without the proposed defense and discharging counsel to present the defense pro se.
3. The district court did not violate Dalrymple's Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process by refusing to allow him to recall K.B.
4. The district court did not violate Dalrymple's confrontation right by refusing to allow him to recall K.B. for additional cross-examination concerning the hypnosis defense.
5. The district court did not make prejudicial comments on Dalrymple's testimony.
6. The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the challenged sentences, which were within statutory limits and were reasonable in light of the offenses, Dalrymple's character, public protection, deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Dalrymple knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when he discharged counsel after the evidentiary phase of trial.
2. Whether the district court impermissibly limited Dalrymple's Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process by refusing to allow him to recall K.B. as a witness.
3. Whether the refusal to permit additional cross-examination of K.B. violated Dalrymple's Sixth Amendment confrontation right.
4. Whether the district court made prejudicial comments on Dalrymple's testimony in the presence of the jury.
5. Whether Dalrymple's sentences were excessive and constituted an abuse of discretion.

Disposition

affirmed