State Motion in Limine - Alternative Perpetrator Evidence

Electronically Filed
2/21/2025 4:03 PM

Fourth Judicial District, Ada County Trent Tripple, Clerk of the Court
By: Sara Wright, Deputy Clerk
LATAH COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, JR., ISB No. 2613
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

ASHLEY S. JENNINGS, ISB No. 8491
SENIOR DEPUTY PROSECUTOR

Latah County Courthouse 522 S. Adams Street, Ste. 211 Moscow, ID 83843
Phone: (208) 883-2246 paservice@latahcountyid.gov
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE
STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA

STATE OF IDAHO, Case No. CR01-24-31665 Plaintiff,
STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE

V. RE: ALTERNATIVE

PERPETRATOR EVIDENCE

BRYAN C. KOHBERGER,

Defendant.

COMES NOW the State of Idaho, by and through the Latah County Prosecuting Attorney, and respectfully moves the Court in limine for an order prohibiting the defendant from offering “ alternative perpetrator ” evidence or argument without first satisfying the Court that any such evidence is relevant and admissible pursuant to I.R.E. 401, 402, or 403. In support of this motion, the State refers the Court and Counsel to State v. Meister, where the Idaho Supreme Court addressed the standard for assessing the admissibility of “ alternative perpetrator ” evidence.

148 Idaho 236 (2009). In Meister, the Idaho Supreme Court held the Idaho Rules of Evidence (adopted in 1985) “ implicitly overruled ” State v. Larsen, 91 Idaho 42 (1966). Id. at 240. The
STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE

RE: ALTERNATIVE PERPETRATOR EVIDENCE 1

proper analysis is under I.R.E. 401, 402 and 403. Id. at 241.

Citing to State v. Self, 139 Idaho 718 (Ct. App. 2003), the Idaho Supreme Court noted the trial court must first consider and determine whether the proffered evidence is relevant under I.R.E. 401. Id. at 241. The second step is to determine whether the probative value of the proffered evidence is “ substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. ” I.R.E. 403, Id. Noting the “ Larsen Court was concerned that a defendant will attempt to admit evidence where the sole purpose is to infer that an individual other than the accused committed the crime, ” the Idaho Supreme Court stated:
If the defendant proffers evidence which merely tends to mislead the jury that another person committed the crime, or the evidence is not relevant because it does not tend to make the defendant's involvement more probable or less probable, then it is within the trial court's discretion to find the evidence inadmissible. Mere inferences that another person could have committed the crime will most likely not be relevant, and if relevant will still be subject to the limitation provisions of I.R.E. 403. [Id.] In this case, during the course of the investigation, literally thousands of tips regarding possible perpetrators were received by law enforcement. With the exception of information regarding the Defendant, none of these tips were substantiated. The State submits that any attempt by the Defendant to offer or argue an alternative perpetrator theory without evidence specifically connecting person (s) other than the Defendant to the homicides would do nothing more than mislead and confuse the jury and would also result in undue delay, waste of time, would be a needless presentation of cumulative evidence, and unfairly prejudice the State. Under the Idaho Supreme Court's ruling in Meister, this should be prohibited.

STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE

RE: ALTERNATIVE PERPETRATOR EVIDENCE 2

The State respectfully submits that the Defendant should be precluded from offering or arguing alternative perpetrator evidence without first meeting the relevance and admissibility thresholds of I.R.E. 401, 402 and 403, as analyzed by the Meister court.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 21st day of February 2025.

William W. Thompson, Jr.

Prosecuting Attorney
STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE

RE: ALTERNATIVE PERPETRATOR EVIDENCE 3

CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY

I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE RE:
ALTERNATIVE PERPETRATOR EVIDENCE were served on the following in the manner indicated below:
Anne Taylor Mailed Attorney at Law E-filed & Served / E-mailed PO Box 2347 Faxed Coeur D Alene, ID 83816 Hand Delivered Dated this 21st day of February 2025.

STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE

RE: ALTERNATIVE PERPETRATOR EVIDENCE 4