State of Idaho v. Dustyn Keith Vaughn

── State of Idaho v. Dustyn Keith Vaughn ── Court: Idaho Court of Appeals Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 51553 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: April 30, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DUSTYN KEITH VAUGHN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Boise County. Hon. Theodore Fleming, District Judge. Judgment of conviction for assault on a law enforcement officer and resisting and obstructing an officer, affirmed. Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ TRIBE, Chief Judge Dustyn Keith Vaughn appeals from his judgment of conviction for assault on a law enforcement officer and resisting and obstructing an officer. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Vaughn was charged with assault on a law enforcement officer (Idaho Code § 18-915(2)(b)) and resisting and obstructing an officer (I.C. § 18-705), following an encounter with parole officers at his property. For the assault charge, the State alleged Vaughn felt for his pockets, refused to follow commands to stop, and then charged aggressively at his parole officer, Officer Gibson. For the resisting and obstructing charge, the State alleged Vaughn refused to follow the commands of two parole officers, including Officer Gibson. 1  Before trial, the State filed a notice of intent to produce evidence under Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b). The State sought to introduce evidence, in part, that: (1) Vaughn was under parole supervision for a domestic violence conviction; and (2) Officer Gibson went to Vaughn’s property to arrest him. At the hearing on the State’s notice, Vaughn did not object to evidence that he was on parole, that he knew Officer Gibson as Vaughn’s parole officer, that Vaughn was noncompliant with the terms of his parole, or that he was specifically noncompliant for “moving [without permission].” Vaughn objected to evidence regarding any other alleged parole violations. The district court excluded admission at trial of any reference to Vaughn being on parole for a domestic violence conviction or any other felony offense and any reference to the specific nature of his parole violations. The case proceeded to a jury trial. During the State’s direct examination, Officer Gibson testified about Vaughn’s repeated failure to comply with commands to remove his hands from his pockets and explained why that conduct caused Officer Gibson concern. When asked to elaborate, Officer Gibson testified, “I didn’t know what was in [Vaughn’s] pockets. He was noncompliant at this point. He already had a list of other violations, so this was just one thing added to the whole puzzle of everything that I found to be extremely concerning to me.” Vaughn objected to Officer Gibson’s testimony. The district court overruled the objection. The jury found Vaughn guilty of both charges. Vaughn appeals. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A trial court’s determination under I.R.E. 403 will not be disturbed on a