State v. Harrell

538 P.3d 818

STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Rodney Carlton HARRELL, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 48839-2021

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, September 2022 Term.

Opinion filed: November 9, 2023

Nevin, Benjamin & McKay LLP, Boise, for Appellant. Dennis A. Benjamin argued.

Raúl R. Labrador, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for Respondent. Kenneth K. Jorgensen argued.

ZAHN, Justice.

Rodney Carlton Harrell appeals his judgment of conviction for trafficking in methamphetamine, trafficking in marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Harrell argues his convictions should be vacated because: (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress, and (2) the district court erred in denying his objection to the reduction of peremptory challenges imposed by this Court's emergency order adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. For the reasons stated below, we affirm Harrell's judgment of conviction.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

At the outset, the incident in this case involved the arrest of three occupants of a pickup truck—Harrell, Stonecypher, and Mosca. This Court resolved Stonecypher's related appeal involving the denial of his motion to suppress in State v. Stonecypher , 170 Idaho 156, 508 P.3d 1230 (2022). Both cases involve the same incident; therefore, we incorporate here the facts described in our decision in Stonecypher :

In May 2020, Idaho State Police Corporal Seth Green observed Stonecypher driving a lifted pickup truck east on I-90 in Kootenai County without mudflaps as required by Idaho Code section 49-949. The pickup also lacked license plates, and a temporary license in the rear window appeared to have been altered. Green pulled over Stonecypher and spoke with him and his passengers, Tabatha Mosca and Rodney Harrell, during the ensuing stop. Green noticed items in the cab of the truck that he associated with illegal drug activity and observed that each of the occupants displayed physical indications of recent drug use.

While waiting for the results of the warrant check from dispatch, Green asked the three about their travels. Green found the explanation for their trip to be incongruous and, because their story involved returning from a visit with a person actively sick with COVID-19, he suspected the story was designed to dissuade him from pursuing the stop further.

At about eight minutes into the stop, Green told the occupants that he suspected drug activity and began to ask them if they had any drugs or paraphernalia in the pickup. Green's questions were interrupted when dispatch informed Green that the license and warrant check were clear. Green then resumed his questions and the three denied that there were any illegal drugs in the pickup. Eventually, a K-9 unit arrived and the drug-detection dog alerted to the presence of illegal drugs. A subsequent search of the pickup uncovered more than three and a half pounds of marijuana, more than 200 grams of methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, firearms, and ammunition.

Id. at 158, 508 P.3d at 1232.

The State charged Harrell with one count of trafficking in methamphetamine pursuant to Idaho Code section 37-2732B(a)(4)(A), one count of trafficking in marijuana pursuant to Idaho Code section 37-2732B(a)(1)(A), and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia pursuant to Idaho Code section 37-2734A(1). The State also alleged that Harrell was subject to a persistent violator sentencing enhancement because he had previously been convicted of at least two other felony offenses. Harrell moved to suppress all evidence seized during the traffic stop because "the extension of the stop and the warrantless search of the vehicle by law enforcement was [sic] unlawful and without legal justification, therefore [sic] in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I § 17 of the Constitution of the State of Idaho." The State opposed the motion to suppress and argued that Green's observations provided a reasonable suspicion to "expand the purpose of the traffic stop to include a drug investigation" and that the search of the vehicle was lawful because the dog sniff provided probable cause.

The district court denied the motion to suppress. The district court explained that the purpose of the encounter switched from investigation of potential traffic infractions to a drug trafficking investigation early on in the stop. The district court found that the arresting officer's observations of the torch lighter, along with the physical mannerisms of the occupants, sufficiently provided him with reasonable suspicion to change the purpose of the stop and call for a canine unit. Additionally, the district court concluded that the drug dog's alert provided probable cause to search the vehicle. The district court further concluded that there was no unlawful extension of the stop because the arresting officer's observations gave him reasonable suspicion to expand the purpose of the stop.

Harrell's trial was rescheduled several times due to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, this Court issued a series of emergency orders governing trial proceedings. The orders set forth several deviations from our rules of criminal procedure, including a reduction in the number of peremptory challenges in certain criminal cases. Harrell filed a pre-trial written objection to the reduced number of peremptory challenges.

At the time the district court decided Harrell's motion, our October 8, 2020 Amended Order governed trial proceedings. It also reduced the number of peremptory challenges:

b. Peremptory challenges allotted to each side, being procedural mechanisms and not substantive rights, shall be modified as follows:

i. Pursuant to I.C.R. 24(d), if the offense charged is punishable by death and the state is seeking a death sentence when voir dire commences, each party, regardless of the number of defendants, is entitled to 10 peremptory challenges.

ii. Pursuant to I.C.R. 24(d), in all other felonies, each party, regardless of the number of defendants, is entitled to three peremptory challenges; however, if there are co-defendants and the court determines that there is a conflict of interest between them or among them, the court may allow one additional peremptory challenge (total of four), and permit them to be exercised separately (e.g. two each), or jointly.

Am. Order re: Jury Trials ¶ 9(b) (Idaho Oct. 8, 2020). The district court overruled Harrell's objection and, in accordance with this Court's Order, allowed each side to have only three peremptory challenges because Harrell's criminal charges were not punishable by death. The jury convicted Harrell on all charges. Harrell then admitted that he had been convicted of eight prior felony offenses, which was sufficient to invoke the application of the persistent violator sentencing enhancement.

For count one, trafficking in methamphetamine greater than 200 grams, the district court sentenced Harrell to a unified term of life imprisonment, with 10 years fixed. The district court noted that the sentence on count one included the enhancement for being a persistent violator. For count two, trafficking in marijuana one pound or more, the district court sentenced Harrell to a unified term of five years, with all five years fixed. For count three, the crime of possession of drug paraphernalia, the district court sentenced Harrell to 354 days in the local jail. The court ordered that the three sentences be served concurrently. Harrell timely appealed his conviction.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

1. Whether the district court erred in denying Harrell's motion to suppress.

2. Whether the district court erred in denying Harrell's objection to the reduction of peremptory challenges.

III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

This Court applies a bifurcated standard when reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress. State v. Danney , 153 Idaho 405, 408, 283 P.3d 722, 725 (2012). "This Court will accept the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous but will freely review the trial court's application of constitutional principles to the facts found." Id. "Findings of fact are not clearly erroneous if they are supported by substantial and competent evidence." State v. Bishop , 146 Idaho 804, 810, 203 P.3d 1203, 1209 (2009) (citing State v. Henage , 143 Idaho 655, 659, 152 P.3d 16, 20 (2007) ). It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine the credibility of the witnesses, weigh conflicting evidence, and draw factual inferences. Id.

We review constitutional questions de novo. State v. Smalley , 164 Idaho 780, 783, 435 P.3d 1100, 1103 (2019).

IV. ANALYSIS

A. The district court did not err when it denied Harrell's motion to suppress.

Harrell's arguments are similar to those raised by Stonecypher in his related appeal. We rejected those arguments in Stonecypher and Harrell's arguments provide no reason for us to depart from that analysis here. See State v. Stonecypher , 170 Idaho 156, 508 P.3d 1230 (2022). For the reasons stated in our decision in Stonecypher , we affirm the district court's decision denying the motion to suppress. See id.

B. The district court did not err when it denied Harrell's objection to the reduction of peremptory challenges.

Harrell argues the district court erred in overruling his objection to the reduction in the number of peremptory challenges he received because the Idaho Constitution and the United States Constitution both guarantee him ten peremptory challenges. We affirm the district court's decision because neither constitution guarantees a specific number of peremptory challenges.

1. The Idaho Constitution's right to jury trial does not incorporate a specific number of peremptory challenges.

Harrell argues that Article I, sections 7 and 13 of the Idaho Constitution, when read together, afford Idaho citizens a right to ten peremptory challenges. In support of this contention, he relies primarily on the fact that territorial statutes in effect at the time the Idaho...