LATAH COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE
WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, JR.
Latah County Courthouse
P.O. Box 8068
Moscow, Idaho 83843-0568
(208) 882-8580 Ext. 3316
ISB No. 2613
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LATAH
STATE OF IDAHO,
JAMIN C. WIGHT,
Case No. CR-2005-002500
STATE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
AND 404(b) NOTICE
COMES NOW the state of Idaho, by and through the Latah County Prosecuting Attorney, and respectfully moves the court for entry of orders in limine as follows:
- Prohibiting the defendant from offering evidence of or arguing either express or implied consent of the victim or her parents. It is well settled in the State of Idaho that consent is not a defense to the crimes of Sexual Abuse of a child Under the Age of Sixteen (Idaho Code 18-1506) or Lewd and Lascivious Conduct with a Child Under Sixteen Years of Age (Idaho Code 18-1508) State v. Oar, 129 Idaho 337 (1996).
- Prohibiting the defendant from offering testimony or arguing to the jury what his future plans may be and what impact, if any, a conviction for the charged offenses could have on himself or those plans. Specifically, it has been represented to the State that the defendant, in discussing this case, has made statements to the effect that he has or had plans to become a minister (particularly one working with youth) and that a conviction for these crimes would prohibit him from pursuing that goal. Similarly, the State has been advised that the defendant has allegedly made statements to third parties regarding the impact these charges (and the circumstances surrounding his conduct which led to these charges) has had or will have on his personal life including marriage. Whether true or not, this type of information is irrelevant to the issue before the jury: whether the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed any of the charged offenses. In fact, in accordance with the Idaho Criminal Jury Instructions, the court must instruct the jury to not concern itself with the subject of penalty or punishment and that the subject of penalty or punishment must not in any way affect their verdict. ICJI 106.
- In the event the defendant questions the timing of the victim’s disclosures to authorities and others, the State respectfully seeks an order from this court allowing the introduction of testimony explaining that the victim believed that the defendant was falsely telling third parties that nothing inappropriate or untoward had occurred between them. This evidence will be offered merely to illustrate the victim’s state of mind, not for the truth of the matters purportedly asserted by the defendant, and is therefore not hearsay. I.R.E. 801(c).
- For an order allowing the testimony of Douglas Wilson and Peter Leithart regarding statements made by the defendant in their presence during a meeting on August 15, 2005, which meeting was also attended by the victim’s parents, Gary and Patricia Greenfield. Although Mr. Wilson serves as pastor in Christ Church, which the victim and her family attend and defendant formerly attended, and Dr. Leithart serves as pastor of Trinity Reformed Church, which the defendant attends, the State respectfully submits that the August 15, 2005, meeting was not a “confidential communication” within the meaning of I.R.E. 505 in that the conversations in that meeting were not intended to remain private and, in fact, were part of an ongoing dialogue and discussion between the defendant and the victim’s parents which included a earlier meeting in December, 2005, where the victim’s attorney, Greg Dickison, was also present.
The State further gives notice pursuant to I.R.E. 404(b) of its intent to offer evidence of acts and statements of the defendant (in addition to the specific acts charged herein) evidencing inappropriate and/or sexually related feelings about or attraction to the victim, as well as physical contact such as hand holding that does not amount to violations of Idaho Code 18-1506 or 1508. The State respectfully submits that this evidence is relative and admissible for the purpose of proving the defendant’s motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, as contemplated by I.R.E. 404(b).
DATED this 14 day of February, 2006.
William W. Thompson, Jr.