State of Idaho v. James Dean Miller

── State of Idaho v. James Dean Miller ── Court: Idaho Court of Appeals Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 51923 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: May 20, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED JAMES DEAN MILLER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Jason D. Scott, District Judge. Judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of drug paraphernalia, affirmed. Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; T. Michael MacEgan, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ TRIBE, Chief Judge James Dean Miller appeals from his judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of drug paraphernalia. Miller argues the district court improperly instructed the jury on reasonable doubt. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The State charged Miller with unlawful possession of a firearm (Idaho Code § 18-3316) and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (I.C. § 37-2734A). The charges arose after law enforcement conducted a traffic stop while investigating a reported shoplifting incident. Miller initially pled not guilty to the charges but later entered a guilty plea to the paraphernalia charge. The case proceeded to a one-day jury trial on the remaining charge of unlawful possession of a firearm. 1  At trial, the State called two witnesses: Officer Bonas and Officer Anderson. Officer Bonas testified that he stopped a vehicle driven by Miller while searching for a man and woman suspected of shoplifting from a store. Miller had two passengers in the backseat of his vehicle--a man, identified as Kodee, and a woman. Officer Bonas determined that Kodee was the individual suspected of the theft. Miller told Officer Bonas that he was the registered owner of the vehicle and that he was merely giving Kodee a ride. Officer Anderson testified that he responded to assist with the shoplifting investigation involving Kodee. Anderson confirmed that Miller was not involved in the theft. According to Anderson, Miller indicated that he had met Kodee approximately two days earlier. After Kodee was arrested for the shoplifting offense, he informed officers that Miller had a firearm in the glove box of the vehicle. Officer Anderson subsequently searched Miller’s vehicle and located a firearm in the locked glove box. Miller denied that there was a gun in his vehicle and denied that Kodee could have placed one there. At trial, the parties stipulated that the weapon recovered from the vehicle was a firearm and that Miller had previously been convicted of a felony. Officer Anderson testified that neither Miller nor Kodee were legally permitted to possess a firearm. Neither party submitted proposed jury instructions, nor objected to the district court’s reasonable doubt instruction. During closing argument, the State contended that it had proven each element of unlawful possession of a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt. Miller argued the firearm belonged to Kodee and the State had failed to prove that Miller