A benefit of being an Idaho lawyer is that it’s completely feasible, all by yourself, to read and digest every single new opinion issued by the state’s two appellate courts. During all of November, for instance, the Idaho Supreme Court and Court of Appeals issued a grand total of seventeen published opinions between the both of them. If I was practicing just one state over in Washington, I’d be swimming in more than twice that many decisions every couple weeks.

Last month, I told about the the poor pro se litigant who suffered a lot of unnecessary hassle just because he didn’t use precisely the right word when filing his tort claim. This month, we learn of another unlucky fellow—Blaine Murray, who got stopped by an Idaho Fish & Game officer and cited for the offense of “Violate Forest Service Road Closure.”

The citation indicated that “Violate Forest Service Road Closure” is codified at “I.C. 36-401(b)10(C).” But if you take a look, you’ll see that there is no “I.C. 36-401(b)10(C).” Of course, the prosecutor who argued the charge against Mr. Murray recognized that. That’s why the prosecutor moved to amend the charge by adding a “1,” to make it “I.C. 36-1401(b)10(C).” The magistrate allowed the amendment, and the wheels of justice rolled on.

Except that there is no “I.C. 36-1401(b)10(C)” either. Again, take a look. But, the magistrate went ahead with the trial. Murray, who was defending himself pro se, objected that (A) he hadn’t been able to prepare at all for the proceedings because he could find no “I.C. 36-401(b)10(C)” (because it wasn’t there to find) and (B) was now being charged with an (also nonexistent) offense that he had not heard a thing about until the hearing began. This was okay, the magistrate told him, because the State had been allowed to amend the citation before trial, at a sidebar that Murray apparently wasn’t invited to.

And Murray was convicted. He got ten days in jail, a $200 fine, and his hunting license suspended for a year, all for violating a nonexistent law.

Surprisingly and thankfully, Mr. Murray didn’t pay the money and serve the time and figure it was all his lot in life. He got a lawyer and appealed the conviction to district court, where his conviction was reversed due to the state’s violation of his due process rights and the charge completely dismissed “in the interest of justice.” But the State of Idaho, thank God, appealed the dismissal. And finally, after a ticket in the field and two court proceedings, a lawyer for the state managed to track down the proper citation: I.C. 36-104(b)(10), an obscure offense that does indeed make it illegal to drive on certain roads under certain conditions. The state was determined to get its $200 and chance to gloat over Mr. Murray as he sat in jail and thought about how naughty it is to drive down roads that have been secretly “closed.”

The state, though, goes home again a loser. The Court of Appeals, after careful analysis, concluded that this fiasco “presents the rare circumstance where a charging document fails, under even the most liberal construction, to charge an offense and therefore is insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on an Idaho court.” The case is State v. Murray, No. 32394 (Idaho Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2006) (36 KB PDF).