The state charged Rauch with battery on a peace officer, I. §§ 18-903, and 18-915(d), for punching the first officer in the face; battery on a peace officer, I. §§ 18-903, and 18-915(d), for biting the second officer; removing a firearm from a law enforcement officer, I. § 18-915A; and aggravated battery on a peace officer, I. §§ 18-903, 18-907(1)(a) & (b), and 18-915(b), for shooting the second officer in the finger.
At trial, a jailer testified that he heard Rauch tell another prisoner that Rauch was the one who shot the cop.
AMENDED OPINIONTHE COURT'S PRIOR OPINION ERRONEOUSLY DATED JUNE 26, 2007, IS HEREBY WITHDRAWN. Rauch appeals from his judgment of conviction for two counts of battery on a peace officer, one count of aggravated battery on a peace officer, and one count of removing a firearm from a law enforcement officer. FACTS AND PROCEDUREOn August 11, 2004, two Idaho Falls police officers responded to a suspicious vehicle reported by a citizen.
Bower, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
This Court determined that questions relating to values, materials associated with, and delivery techniques of marijuana were permissible because they went to Hocker's credibility by exposing his knowledge of such things to the jury.
Therefore, we concluded that the district court had not abused its discretion in refusing to limit the scope of cross-examination of Hocker in that case.
In order to preserve an evidentiary ruling for appellate review, the party assigning error to the ruling must make a sufficient record from which an appellate court can adequately determine whether there was error, and whether the rights of the party have been prejudiced. Schoonover, 125 Idaho 953, 954, 877 P.2d 924, 925 (Ct. A sufficient record for appellate review can be established either by the witness taking the stand and testifying as to what he or she would have said if the court had ruled the other way on the evidence or by giving an adequate offer of proof. The requirement that the witness must take the stand or submit an adequate offer of proof is necessary so that the appellate court sitting in review has the context to determine if the trial court in fact committed error, and so the appellate court is not handicapped in making a determination as to whether the error was harmless. Specifically, Rauch's attorney asked the district court:[I]f Mr.
Rauch takes the stand to dispute [the jailer's] statement, that he said, I'm the one that shot the mother F'er cop.The second officer joined the scuffle, taking Rauch to the ground.During the fight, Rauch bit the second officer on the arm and squeezed his scrotum.Where a defendant voluntarily testifies on his or her own behalf, the defendant waives the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination with respect to questions related to the subject matter of his or her testimony. Hocker was then extensively cross-examined regarding his knowledge of values of different amounts of marijuana, the type of materials used for handling and packaging marijuana, and his personal knowledge of the items admitted into evidence that were seized from his residence.Hocker objected on the grounds that this testimony was beyond the scope of the limited direct examination.And then a second statement where the jailer states to him-I don't know who made that statement-I'm just going to testify for the overtime.