Court rejects appeal in lewd conduct case

SANDPOINT — The Idaho Court of Appeals is rejecting an Athol man’s claim that a biased juror factored into his conviction on three counts of lewd conduct with a minor.

Curtis Edward Jackson was accused of molesting a 9-year-old girl in Careywood in 2009 and was found guilty. First District Judge Steve Verby imposed three concurrent life sentences with a chance at parole after serving 15 years.

Jackson petitioned the court for leniency, arguing the sentence was too excessive. He also moved for the appointment of post-conviction counsel, but Verby denied both requests, prompting Jackson to appeal.

Jackson argued on appeal that the court should have excused a juror because she initially indicated during the selection process that she would believe the testimony over Jackson’s if the case was purely his word against hers.

Under further questioning by the court and the prosecution, however, the juror said she would hold the state to its burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Juror 34’s unequivocal affirmation that she would hold the State to its burden and be fair and impartial was sufficient to cure any bias the juror previously expressed,” appeals Judge David W. Gratton wrote in a 12-page opinion released on Tuesday.

Jackson, 50, moved for the appointment of publicly funded defense counsel for his post-conviction proceedings, but Verby denied the motion because Jackson did not file a notarized financial affidavit to demonstrate that he was indigent.

Gratton affirmed Verby’s ruling on the motion, finding that even if Jackson was indeed indigent, the district court did not err in denying the motion because his motion for post-conviction relief was frivolous.

Chief Judge Sergio A. Gutierrez concurred, although Judge Karen Lansing dissented in part. Lansing found that Jackson submitted a signed statement indicating that he had three vehicles and a motorcycle that could be sold, but he was already incarcerated and had no ability to sell them to fund his petition for post-conviction relief.

“Given the substantial nature of his sentence, I conclude that a person with adequate means to hire counsel would have desired to bring a motion for reduction of the sentence at his own expense, and therefore it was not frivolous,” Lansing wrote.