State v. Cesar A. Sepulveda

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed Cesar Antonio Sepulveda’s convictions for felony intimidating a witness, misdemeanor domestic battery, injury to a child, and two counts of attempted violation of a no-contact order. The court held that admitting the deceased victim’s preliminary-hearing testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause, excluding evidence concerning the victim’s cause of death did not violate the right to present a defense, and the convictions did not violate Idaho’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

Holdings

1. Admission of L.M.'s testimonial preliminary-hearing testimony did not violate Sepulveda's Sixth Amendment confrontation right because L.M. was unavailable and Sepulveda had an adequate prior opportunity for cross-examination.
2. Sepulveda's right to present a defense was not violated because the excluded evidence was irrelevant to the charged conduct and would not have impeached L.M.'s testimony or shown a motive to lie.
3. Felony intimidating a witness was not an included offense of either attempted violation of a no-contact order because the information did not plead all elements of witness intimidation as a means or element of those offenses; therefore, the convictions did not violate the Idaho Constitution's double-jeopardy clause.
4. Cumulative error did not require reversal because the court found no individual error.

Questions Presented

1. Whether admission of L.M.'s preliminary-hearing testimony violated Sepulveda's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses because he allegedly lacked an adequate opportunity for cross-examination.
2. Whether exclusion of evidence concerning L.M.'s drug use and cause of death violated Sepulveda's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense.
3. Whether conviction for felony intimidating a witness and two attempted violations of a no-contact order violated the Idaho Constitution's prohibition against double jeopardy because intimidating a witness was allegedly a lesser included offense.
4. Whether cumulative error required reversal.

Disposition

affirmed