State of Idaho v. Michael James Hinkel

── State of Idaho v. Michael James Hinkel ── Court: Idaho Supreme Court Date: May 18, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 51754 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: May 18, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) MICHAEL JAMES HINKEL, ) ) Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Alan C. Stephens, District Judge. Judgment of conviction for attempted strangulation, vacated and case remanded. Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ LORELLO, Judge Michael James Hinkel appeals from his judgment of conviction for attempted strangulation. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate Hinkel’s judgment of conviction and remand for a new trial. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Hinkel and the victim were in a dating relationship and lived together. Hinkel and the victim had an argument. A security camera in the living room of the residence recorded part of the incident, and the argument later continued into the bedroom where no cameras were present. Evidence at trial indicated that, while in the bedroom, Hinkel struck the victim on the nose, grabbed her by the throat, and pushed her up against a window. In response, the victim kicked Hinkel in 1 the groin, causing him to release his grip and enabling the victim to leave the residence. As the victim left, Hinkel followed; this was captured by the security camera. The victim subsequently drove to the police station where she reported the incident. An officer took several photographs of the victim’s face and neck. Later, a second officer responded to the police station. Officers contacted and interviewed Hinkel who initially denied that any physical altercation occurred. Hinkel also told the officer that the victim “had choked herself” in the past and that “she causes herself to have red marks when she wants to get him in trouble.” The State charged Hinkel with attempted strangulation and domestic battery. Hinkel pled not guilty, and the case proceeded to trial. At trial, both officers testified that they saw redness and finger marks on the victim’s neck, which they interpreted as evidence of attempted strangulation. Hinkel objected, arguing that the officers’ testimony constituted expert testimony for which no appropriate disclosures had been made prior to trial. The district court found the officers’ testimony admissible and overruled Hinkel’s objections. A jury found Hinkel guilty of attempted strangulation (I.C. § 18-923) and acquitted him of domestic battery. Hinkel appeals. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The decision to admit opinion testimony, whether lay opinion or expert opinion, rests within the discretion of the lower court, while the determination of its weight lies with the jury. State v. Smith, 170 Idaho 800, 814, 516 P.3d 1071, 1085 (2022). When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundari