1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39778

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

HARVEY PAUL GUTHRIE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 717

Filed: October 18, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bannock County. Hon. Stephen S. Dunn, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction for felony driving under the influence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Spencer J. Hahn, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Harvey Paul Guthrie appeals from his judgment of conviction for felony driving under 

the influence. Specifically, Guthrie contends the district court erred by denying his motion to 

suppress. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. 

On the evening of July 12, 2008, Officer Reed Morrell with the Pocatello Police 

Department initiated a traffic stop of Guthrie after observing Guthrie cross over the center line 

three times. Upon making contact with Guthrie, Officer Morrell detected the smell of alcohol

coming from Guthrie. Guthrie admitted to Officer Morrell that he had consumed alcohol that 

evening, but claimed his vehicle pulled to the left. Another officer arrived on scene and directed

Guthrie to perform field sobriety tests. Guthrie was subsequently arrested for driving under the 

influence. The State charged Guthrie with felony driving under the influence, having been 
2

convicted of felony driving under the influence within the last fifteen years, and with being a 

persistent violator. Guthrie filed a motion entitled “Motion Re: Challenging the Probable Cause 

to Pulled [sic] My Vehicle Over the Night of July 12, 2008 at 10:30 p.m.” The district court 

treated the motion as challenging the probable cause determination at the preliminary hearing 

and denied the motion. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Guthrie entered a conditional guilty plea to 

felony driving under the influence, Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005(7), and the State dismissed 

the persistent violator enhancement. The district court entered a judgment of conviction and 

sentenced Guthrie to a unified term of five years, with three years determinate.

Guthrie appealed, challenging the district court’s treatment of his motion, arguing the 

motion was a motion to suppress based on a lack of probable cause to conduct the traffic stop. 

The State agreed that the motion should have been treated as a motion to suppress. Upon the 

parties’ stipulation, an order was entered dismissing the appeal, vacating the judgment of 

conviction, and remanding the case back to the district court for consideration of Guthrie’s 

motion to suppress.

On remand, the district court conducted a hearing on Guthrie’s motion to suppress 

wherein Officer Morrell and Guthrie testified regarding the traffic stop. After the hearing, the 

district court made the following findings of fact and conclusion:

Guthrie’s position is that there is no evidence supporting Officer Morrell’s 

statement that Guthrie’s vehicle crossed the center line three times. In evaluating 

the credibility of the testimony, the Court concludes that Officer Morrell’s 

testimony is more credible than the Defendant’s because he was in a better 

position to observe whether Guthrie’s vehicle crossed the center line. In addition, 

Guthrie claims he did not say, when told he crossed the center line, that the 

vehicle pulls to the left, but the audio recording clearly reflects that statement by 

Guthrie. Finally, the Court has carefully reviewed the video recording several 

times. Although the video is not perfect and there is some reflection into the 

camera lens from an oncoming vehicle, the Court’s observations are that after the 

oncoming vehicle passed Officer Morrell’s vehicle, Guthrie’s vehicle moves 

toward the center line once, and appears to have crossed it, and then definitely 

does cross the center line just prior to the stop. Thus, it is the Court’s conclusion 

that there was probable cause to initiate a traffic stop for violation of I.C. 

§ 49-630(1), which requires drivers to drive within their lane of travel, with 

exceptions not applicable here. Applying the analysis of State v. Slater, [136 

Idaho 293, 32 P.3d 685 (Ct. App. 2001)], on an objective basis the evidence 

clearly supports both the reasonable suspicion and probable cause requirements 

for initiating a traffic stop in this case. 
3

The district court denied Guthrie’s motion, and Guthrie again appealed.1

The standard of review of a suppression motion is bifurcated. When a decision on a 

motion to suppress is challenged, we accept the trial court’s findings of fact that are supported by 

substantial evidence, but we freely review the application of constitutional principles to the facts 

as found. State v. Atkinson, 128 Idaho 559, 561, 916 P.2d 1284, 1286 (Ct. App. 1996). At a 

suppression hearing, the power to assess the credibility of witnesses, resolve factual conflicts, 

weigh evidence, and draw factual inferences is vested in the trial court. State v. Valdez-Molina, 

127 Idaho 102, 106, 897 P.2d 993, 997 (1995); State v. Schevers, 132 Idaho 786, 789, 979 P.2d 

659, 662 (Ct. App. 1999). 

Guthrie “vigorously disputes the district court’s factual finding that he committed a 

traffic violation, namely crossing the center line, justifying the traffic stop in this case.” 

However, Guthrie does not contend that the district court’s findings of fact are not supported by 

substantial evidence. Where the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial, even 

if conflicting, evidence in the record, we will not disturb them on appeal. State v. Ray, 153 Idaho 

564, 567, 286 P.3d 1114, 1117 (2012); State v. Burris, 125 Idaho 289, 291, 869 P.2d 1384, 1386 

(Ct. App. 1994).

Accordingly, Guthrie’s judgment of conviction for felony driving under the influence is 

affirmed.

 

1 Guthrie filed his appeal within forty-two days of the decision denying his motion to 

suppress; however, the prior judgment had been vacated pursuant to the parties’ stipulation to 

remand and no new judgment had been entered. The case was again remanded to the district 

court for the limited purpose of re-entering the judgment.