Court Filing
Electronically Filed 3/21/2025 4:29 PM Fourth Judicial District, Ada County Trent Tripple, Clerk of the Court By: Jennifer Keyes, 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 REPLY TO V. DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE BRYAN C. KOHBERGER, RE: ALTERNATIVE Defendant. PERPETRATOR EVIDENCE COMES NOW the State of Idaho, by and through the Latah County Prosecuting Attorney, and submits the following reply to the March 17, 2025, “ Defendant's Objection to State's Motion in Limine RE: Alternative Perpetrator Evidence. " Although the Defendant purports to “ object ” to the State's motion and asks that the Court " deny " the same (see motion at page 3), in truth the Defendant appears to substantively concur with the legal standards articulated by the State in support of its instant motion: State v. Meister, 148 Idaho 236 (2009): the Defendant acknowledges that he must make a satisfactory offer of STATE'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE RE: ALTERNATIVE PERPETRATOR EVIDENCE 1 proof prior to offering or arguing an alternative perpetrator theory. Consequently, the Court should grant the State's motion and enter an order prohibiting the Defendant from offering “ alternative perpetrator ” evidence or argument without first satisfying the Court that such evidence is relevant and admissible under I.R.E. 401, 402 and 403, and State v. Meister, 148 Idaho 236 (2009). Under the authority of Meister, which cites approvingly to State v. Self, 139 Idaho 718 (Ct. App. 2003), the Defendant's proffer or offer of proof must include evidence specifically connecting person (s) other than the Defendant to the homicides, recognizing that “ 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 limitations provisions of I.R.E. 403. ” (Meister at 241 citing to Self.) The State further requests that the Court set a reasonable deadline for the Defendant to make any proffer / offers of proof regarding alternative perpetrator evidence or argument sufficiently prior to trial so the issues can be fully reviewed by the Court, appropriate admissibility decisions made, and the parties prepare to proceed accordingly. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 21st day of March 2025. 2224 William W. Thompson, Jr. Prosecuting Attorney STATE'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE RE: ALTERNATIVE PERPETRATOR EVIDENCE 2 CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the STATE'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO 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 March 2025. STATE'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE RE: ALTERNATIVE PERPETRATOR EVIDENCE 3