IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 50938
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 31, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
)
RYAN SCOTT McCABE, )
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. James S. Cawthon, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and persistent
violator enhancement, affirmed.
Silvey Law Office Ltd; Greg S. Silvey, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
GRATTON, Chief Judge
Ryan Scott McCabe appeals from his judgment of conviction for aggravated battery with
a deadly weapon and persistent violator enhancement. McCabe contends that the district court
erred by admitting evidence of flight as consciousness of guilt. We affirm.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
McCabe was charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, Idaho Code §§ 18-
903(a), 18-907(1)(b), 19-2520, and a persistent violator enhancement, I.C. § 19-2514. The charges
stem from an altercation in July 2022 between McCabe and Solomon Christensen. McCabe used
a knife to inflict approximately fifteen stab wounds across Christensen’s neck, back, and arms. An
acquaintance and witness, Joseph King, broke up the fight, threw the knife over a nearby fence,
and called 911. McCabe fled the scene on foot. Officers obtained data from McCabe’s cell phone.
1
Officers tracked McCabe’s cell phone location, which showed that McCabe stayed in the area of
the fight for a short time. McCabe’s phone then moved to another location in Boise before
traveling to the Buhl area. In October 2022, after an arrest warrant was issued, officers received
information that McCabe was in California and McCabe was arrested and extradited to Idaho.
The State filed a motion in limine and notice of intent to introduce evidence, pursuant to
Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b), of McCabe’s flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt. Over
McCabe’s objection, the district court granted the State’s motion. The jury found McCabe guilty
of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and being a persistent violator. McCabe appeals.
II.
ANALYSIS
McCabe contends that the district court erred in allowing evidence of his flight as
consciousness of guilt. Specifically, McCabe, while acknowledging current caselaw, argues that
flight that does not involve fleeing from a court proceeding or a police interview is not relevant or
admissible for purposes of showing consciousness of guilt.
Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of
consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be
without the evidence. I.R.E. 401; State v. Garcia, 166 Idaho 661, 670,
462 P.3d 1125, 1134
(2020). Whether a fact is of consequence or material is determined by its relationship to the legal
theories presented by the parties. State v. Johnson,
148 Idaho 664, 671,
227 P.3d 918, 925 (2010).
There is no requirement that evidence be relevant only to a disputed issue under I.R.E. 401, only
that evidence be probative and material to be admissible. I.R.E. 401; Garcia,
166 Idaho at 671,
462 P.3d at 1135. However, even relevant evidence can be excluded if it is unfairly prejudicial.
For example, pursuant to I.R.E. 404, evidence of other crimes or wrongs may be relevant but
cannot be admitted for the purpose of showing a defendant’s propensity for criminal behavior.
Nonetheless, evidence of other crimes or wrongs may be admissible if the prosecution provides
notice, and the evidence is relevant to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” I.R.E. 404(b).
A trial court engages in a two-tiered analysis to determine the admissibility
of I.R.E. 404(b) evidence. State v. Fox, 170 Idaho 846, 861,
517 P.3d 107, 122 (2022). The first
tier concerns the relevancy of the evidence at issue.
Id. The trial court “must determine whether
there is sufficient evidence to establish the other crime or wrong as fact” and “whether the evidence
2
of the other act would be relevant to a material and disputed issue concerning the crime charged,
other than propensity.” Id. The first tier is reviewed de novo.
Id.
The second tier requires the trial court to perform a balancing test pursuant
to I.R.E. 403. Id. Under this balancing test, the evidence may be excluded if its probative value
is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Id. The second tier is reviewed for
an abuse of discretion.
Id. When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the
appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court: (1) correctly
perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion;
(3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and
(4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason. State v. Herrera,
164 Idaho 261, 270,
429 P.3d
149, 158 (2018).
In State v. Kimbley, 173 Idaho 149,
539 P.3d 969 (2023), the Idaho Supreme Court
addressed flight as consciousness of guilt under I.R.E. 404(b):
While Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b) generally prohibits evidence of a
defendant’s other crimes or acts, such evidence is admissible to prove a defendant’s
“consciousness of guilt.” State v. Sheahan, 139 Idaho 267, 279,
77 P.3d 956, 968
(2003). Moreover, this Court has previously recognized that a defendant’s flight
from prosecution can evidence a consciousness of guilt. See State v. Moore, 131
Idaho 814, 819,
965 P.2d 174, 179 (1998). For a defendant’s departure to constitute
a flight from prosecution, “‘there must be other circumstances present and
unexplained which, together with the departure, reasonably justify an inference that
it was done with a consciousness of guilt and in an effort to avoid apprehension or
prosecution based on that guilt.’” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Kimbley, 173 Idaho at 158, 539 P.3d at 978. The existence of alternative reasons for the escape or
flight goes to the weight of the evidence and not to its relevance or admissibility. Id. at 159,
539
P.3d at 979.
The evidence established that McCabe, Christensen, and King worked together at Sweet
Septic, based in Gooding. In July of 2022, they were assigned to a job in the Boise area. The three
traveled together in King’s truck from Gooding to Boise. At their hotel in Boise, McCabe and
Christensen got into a verbal altercation and then engaged in a mutual fight. McCabe said, “die
mother fucker die” to Christensen and stabbed him multiple times. McCabe fled the scene.
An officer received a search warrant for McCabe’s phone records and location records
from McCabe’s cell phone service provider. McCabe’s phone stayed near the crime scene for a
short time and then was tracked to another area in Boise for several hours. The phone then traveled
3
to the Buhl area. Officers had two short phone conversations with McCabe during that time.
Months later, McCabe was located and arrested in and extradited from California.
Prior to trial, the State filed a motion seeking to introduce evidence of McCabe’s flight
from the scene based on the phone records and McCabe’s movement to California. The district
court conducted an I.R.E. 404(b) analysis and concluded that McCabe’s flight was relevant to
show consciousness of guilt and that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The district court recognized McCabe’s analysis of
case law and argument that flight must be from criminal proceedings or police interviews but stated
that it did not read the cases so narrowly. The district court stated that the cases surrounding
consciousness of guilt relate to flight which suggests an attempt to evade justice. The district court
also noted McCabe’s argument as to alternative reasons for his travels but held that such evidence
goes to the weight of the evidence not admissibility.1
McCabe relies on State v. Moore, 131 Idaho 814,
965 P.2d 174 (1998); State v. Rossignol,
147 Idaho 818,
215 P.3d 538 (Ct. App. 2009); State v. Friedley,
122 Idaho 321,
834 P.2d 323 (Ct.
App. 1992); and Kimbley to show that each case involved flight to avoid a criminal proceeding or
police interview. While the circumstances of those cases may relate to a scheduled criminal
proceeding or law enforcement interview, they do not stand for the proposition that flight as
evidence of consciousness of guilt is limited to those situations. In Kimbley, the Idaho Supreme
Court noted that evidence of flight may relate to circumstances of avoidance of apprehension or
prosecution. Kimbley, 173 Idaho at 158,
539 P.3d at 978. Similarly, in State v. Passons,
158 Idaho
286, 292,
346 P.3d 303, 309 (Ct. App. 2015), this Court held that flight from officers in active
pursuit following commission of a crime could reasonably be seen as an attempt to avoid
prosecution and was admissible to establish a consciousness of guilt.
McCabe’s stabbing of Christensen put him at risk of prosecution. His flight from the scene,
his flight from the Boise area despite having an ongoing work project, and his flight from Idaho
after being contacted by an officer, could reasonably be seen as an attempt to avoid apprehension
or prosecution. The district court did not err in granting the State’s motion in limine and allowing
admission of evidence of McCabe’s flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt.
1
On appeal, McCabe acknowledges that alternative reasons for his flight bear on the weight
of the evidence of flight, not admissibility.
4
III.
CONCLUSION
McCabe fails to demonstrate error in the district court’s ruling allowing the evidence of
flight as consciousness of guilt. Therefore, McCabe’s judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Judge HUSKEY and Judge LORELLO CONCUR.
5
