State v. Nelson

Idaho Supreme Court

State v. Nelson

756 P.2d 409, 114 Idaho 292, 1988 Ida. LEXIS 60

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedJune 17, 1988

Docket16907

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 756 P.2d 409 (State v. Nelson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Nelson, 756 P.2d 409, 114 Idaho 292, 1988 Ida. LEXIS 60 (Idaho 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, the State of Idaho, seeks review of an Idaho Court of Appeals decision, State v. Nelson, 112 Idaho 245, 731 P.2d 788 (Ct.App.1987), which reversed respondent Nelson’s conviction for the felony offense of delivery of cocaine for the trial court’s failure to give Nelson’s requested instruction on circumstantial evidence.

The state’s case against Nelson rested solely upon circumstantial evidence. A police informant through James O’Neil exchanged money (which had been photocopied) for cocaine. After the transaction, police officers followed O’Neil to Nelson’s house. Later, the police observed Nelson leaving his house. Nelson was stopped by officers who found a large portion of the photocopied bills in his possession. Various drug paraphernalia and a magazine were later found in Nelson’s house. The paper which contained the cocaine the informant purchased came from a magazine found in Nelson’s home.

On appeal before the Court of Appeals, Nelson argued that the trial court’s instructions were inadequate, in that the trial court failed to give his requested Holder instruction on the use of circumstantial evidence. See State v. Holder, 100 Idaho 129, 594 P.2d 639 (1979). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that it was reversible error not to give Nelson’s proposed Holder instruction.

We granted the state’s petition for review of the Court of Appeals’ decision to consider the state’s argument that the Court of Appeals erroneously ruled that the trial court’s instructions on circumstantial evidence were inadequate, and, in the alternative, to consider the state’s request to overrule State v. Holder, supra. After briefing and argument and a review of the instructions, we are of the opinion that the Court of Appeals’ decision correctly followed our decision in State v. Holder, supra, which we decline to overrule.

The judgment of the district court is reversed.

SHEPARD, C.J., dissents without opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, the State of Idaho, seeks review of an Idaho Court of Appeals decision, State v. Nelson, 112 Idaho 245, 731 P.2d 788 (Ct.App.1987), which reversed respondent Nelson’s conviction for the felony offense of delivery of cocaine for the trial court’s failure to give Nelson’s requested instruction on circumstantial evidence.

The state’s case against Nelson rested solely upon circumstantial evidence. A police informant through James O’Neil exchanged money (which had been photocopied) for cocaine. After the transaction, police officers followed O’Neil to Nelson’s house. Later, the police observed Nelson leaving his house. Nelson was stopped by officers who found a large portion of the photocopied bills in his possession. Various drug paraphernalia and a magazine were later found in Nelson’s house. The paper which contained the cocaine the informant purchased came from a magazine found in Nelson’s home.

On appeal before the Court of Appeals, Nelson argued that the trial court’s instructions were inadequate, in that the trial court failed to give his requested Holder instruction on the use of circumstantial evidence. See State v. Holder, 100 Idaho 129, 594 P.2d 639 (1979). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that it was reversible error not to give Nelson’s proposed Holder instruction.

We granted the state’s petition for review of the Court of Appeals’ decision to consider the state’s argument that the Court of Appeals erroneously ruled that the trial court’s instructions on circumstantial evidence were inadequate, and, in the alternative, to consider the state’s request to overrule State v. Holder, supra. After briefing and argument and a review of the instructions, we are of the opinion that the Court of Appeals’ decision correctly followed our decision in State v. Holder, supra, which we decline to overrule.

The judgment of the district court is reversed.

SHEPARD, C.J., dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

756 P.2d 409, 114 Idaho 292, 1988 Ida. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nelson-idaho-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack