Appeals court vacates conviction

SANDPOINT — The Idaho Court of Appeals is vacating the conviction of a man accused of intimidating a witness in a drug investigation because of a faulty jury instruction and an unreliable witness.

The case against Robert James Sutton Jr. is being remanded back to 1st District Court for further proceedings, according to an appellate court opinion filed on Friday.

Sutton was accused of bursting into a drug informant’s apartment and threatening her with semiautomatic pistol in 2008. The state argued at trial that Sutton menaced Sara Rose Phelps to dissuade her from testifying against one of his relatives in a methamphetamine-dealing case.

A Bonner County jury convicted Sutton of witness intimidation, but acquitted him of aggravated assault and rendered no verdict on a charge of burglary, which involved Sutton’s entry in to Phelps’ downtown apartment.

Sutton said he was wrongfully convicted when he was sentenced to a six- to 10-year prison term in 2009. Sutton is serving the sentence at the Idaho State Correctional Institution in Kuna, Idaho Department of Correction records indicate.

Sutton appealed his conviction, contending that jurors were given flawed instructions concerning the elements that constitute the offense of witness intimidation. State appellate public defenders pointed to an Idaho Supreme Court case in which a jury instruction erroneously omitted the element that the defendant willfully threatened or harassed the witness from testifying freely, fully and truthfully.

In both cases, the jury instructions seemed to imply a requirement that the act be done to prevent a witness from testifying, but neither set of instructions included it as an express element.

The defense argued the error was fundamental because the omission violated Sutton’s right to due process. It further argued that based on the assault acquittal and the hung jury on the burglary charge, jurors did not find Phelps’ testimony credible.

The attorney general’s office maintained the error was harmless because the jury would have reached the same verdict if properly instructed.

But Chief Judge David Gratton found that Sutton met his burden of demonstrating the error was not harmless. Additionally, the jury had ample reason to question the veracity of Phelps’ testimony.

“Ultimately, this case hinges on Phelps’ testimony, which was subject to a number of reasons for the jury to doubt its credibility,” Gratton wrote, noting that she lied on the stand about being an informant and about buying meth from Sutton’s relative.

Judges Karen Lansing and Sergio Gutierrez concurred with Gratton.