IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO DOCKET NO. 49461 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Boise, June 2022 Term ) v. ) Opinion Filed: September 2, 2022 ) MICHANGLO SMITH, ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk ) Defendant-Appellant. ) _______________________________________ ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Ada County. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge and Thomas F. Neville, Senior District Judge. The judgments and order of the district court are affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellant Public Defender, Boise, for Appellant. Sally Cooley argued. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for Respondent. Mark Olson argued. _____________________ BRODY, Justice. Michanglo Smith challenges multiple evidentiary decisions of the district court involving two jury trials. Smith also challenges the district court’s order of restitution. During the first trial, a jury found Smith guilty of felony domestic battery with traumatic injury, misdemeanor assault, and misdemeanor false imprisonment. However, the jury was unable to reach a decision on the attempted strangulation charge. The State re-tried Smith on that charge, and after a second trial, a jury found him guilty of attempted strangulation. Smith appealed his convictions and the subsequent restitution order. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Factual Background The underlying convictions stem from a violent incident involving Smith and his then girlfriend (“Girlfriend”) on the night of January 27, 2018 and lasted into the morning of January 1 28, 2018. Smith and Girlfriend began dating in August 2017. One month later, the pair moved in together and resided at a hotel in Boise, Idaho. Smith and Girlfriend started to have serious discussions about marriage and in December 2017, Smith and Girlfriend moved into an apartment. During this time, Girlfriend was working at a fast-food restaurant (“Restaurant”) in Boise. On the night of the underlying incident, Girlfriend worked a shift until approximately 10:30 p.m. Before clocking out, Girlfriend had a conversation with her supervisor (“Supervisor”) about Girlfriend being promoted to “team lead.” After clocking out, Girlfriend drove towards the apartment while speaking on the phone with Smith. However, before Girlfriend reached the apartment, the call dropped. What occurred after that, and into the next morning, was disputed at trial. According to Smith (who testified during the first trial but not the second), Girlfriend arrived at the apartment roughly fifteen minutes after the call dropped and was “irate and crying and hysterical.” Smith further testified that when Girlfriend arrived at the apartment, her face was already “swollen” and “beat up” and that she “attacked” him and started “hollering.” According to Smith, Girlfriend was attacked by some other person(s) to whom she owed money. In contrast, Girlfriend testified that Smith had attacked, threatened, and attempted to strangle her repeatedly—not some other person(s). In the first trial, after hearing from both Girlfriend and Smith, in addition to multiple witnesses corroborating Girlfriend’s injuries and reported version of events, the jury convicted Smith on all counts except the attempted strangulation charge. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals