1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39491

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ALEX LEE PETTIT,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 430

Filed: April 4, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin 

Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction for possession of controlled substance with intent to 

deliver, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; John C. McKinney, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

GRATTON, Judge

Alex Lee Pettit appeals from his judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled 

substance with the intent to deliver, Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(B). He claims that the district 

court erred by requiring him to provide irrelevant testimony regarding the identity of the person 

from whom he purchased marijuana.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In July 2010, detectives from the Twin Falls Sheriff’s Department obtained a search 

warrant for Pettit’s residence. Once inside the residence, the deputies found marijuana, cash, 

packaging supplies, a scale, and firearms. Pettit was arrested and charged with one count of 

possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, in violation of I.C. § 37-

2732(a)(1)(B). 
2

At trial, Pettit admitted possessing the marijuana but denied that he possessed it with the 

intent to deliver. On cross-examination, Pettit was asked by the prosecutor about where he had 

obtained the marijuana and the following interaction occurred:

[PROSECUTOR]: And the marijuana in the safe, you said that was 

yours?

[PETTIT]: Yes, ma’am.

[PROSECUTOR]: Where did you get that?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. Irrelevant.

[THE COURT]: Overruled.

[PETTIT]: Just from marijuana dealers.

[PROSECUTOR]: Who?

[PETTIT]: I mean, do I have to say a name?

[THE COURT]: Yes, you do.

[PETTIT]: I mean, there was a number of--there was--I don’t 

see how this is relevant at all to how I--a name of 

my dealer is relevant to my case. I don’t

understand.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Once again, Your Honor, I’d renew my objection as 

to relevancy.

[THE COURT]: Overruled.

[PROSECUTOR]: Who did you buy the marijuana from that was in the 

safe?

[PETTIT]: It was an older fellow named Joe.

[PROSECUTOR]: What’s his last name?

[PETTIT]: I don’t recall.

[PROSECUTOR]: Where does he live?

[PETTIT]: In Twin.

[PROSECUTOR]: Where?

[PETTIT]: I don’t know now.

[PROSECUTOR]: Where was he living back in June of 2010?

[PETTIT]: Back on a president street.

[PROSECUTOR]: What street?

[PETTIT]: Monroe.

[PROSECUTOR]: What house number?

[PETTIT]: I don’t recall the house number.

[PROSECUTOR]: Do you recall the block?

[PETTIT]: Third block. The 300 block.

[PROSECUTOR]: Who did he live there with?

[PETTIT]: Just by himself is all, as far as I know.

[PROSECUTOR]: You don’t know his last name?

[PETTIT]: No. It started with a “B.”

[PROSECUTOR]: His name is Joe?

[PETTIT]: Yes.
3

Pettit was found guilty. The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years with three 

years determinate, and the court retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained 

jurisdiction, the district court suspended the sentence and placed Pettit on probation. Pettit 

timely appealed. 

II.

ANALYSIS

Pettit claims that the identity of the person from whom he purchased marijuana was 

irrelevant and that the district court erred by requiring him to answer the prosecutor’s questions. 

Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of 

consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be 

without the evidence.” Idaho Rule of Evidence 401; State v. Byington, 132 Idaho 597, 603, 977 

P.2d 211, 217 (Ct. App. 1998). Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible. I.R.E. 402. 

Whether evidence is relevant is an issue of law which this Court reviews de novo. State v. 

Lamphere, 130 Idaho 630, 632, 945 P.2d 1, 3 (1997); State v. Sanchez, 147 Idaho 521, 211 P.3d 

130 (Ct. App. 2009).

We need not decide whether the testimony sought was irrelevant. Even if the district 

court’s ruling regarding the supplier’s identity was in error, I.R.E. 103 provides that “Error may 

not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of 

the party is affected.” Trial error will be deemed harmless if the reviewing court is convinced,

beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to the verdict. State v. Perry, 150 

Idaho 209, 227, 245 P.3d 961, 979 (2010). In reviewing for harmless error, the court evaluates 

the potential prejudice from the inadmissible evidence in the context of the evidence presented at 

trial. State v. Yager, 139 Idaho 680, 687, 85 P.3d 656, 663 (2004) (error in failing to suppress 

evidence was harmless because probative value of evidence improperly admitted at trial was de 

minimis in light of other evidence properly presented to establish defendant’s guilt).

The evidence establishing Pettit’s guilt of possession of a controlled substance with the 

intent to deliver was extensive. The detective seized several large “heat sealable” bags, which 

the detective later testified are typically used in sales of bulk amounts of marijuana. The 

detective also found in Pettit’s bedroom a safe, which contained: (1) a set of electronic scales;

(2) a black case containing one thousand dollars and a miniature suitcase also containing a 

thousand dollars; (3) a heat sealable bag; (4) a Tupperware-style container with two black plastic 
4

bags containing a total of just over twelve grams of marijuana; (5) Ziplock baggies; (6) one 

plastic bag containing 15.83 grams of marijuana, a large FoodSaver bag that had the odor of 

marijuana inside; and (7) two handguns and seven rifles. A detective testified that it is common 

for drug dealers to keep money and firearms in close proximity to where illicit drugs are stored 

for safekeeping and protection. Last, and arguably most important, the detective testified that 

Pettit, after he waived his Miranda rights,1 admitted to selling marijuana in order to supplement 

his income. 

Pettit also testified at trial that he admitted to possessing the marijuana, but denied that 

he possessed it with the intent to deliver. Pettit also testified that some of the sealable bags were 

used to package marijuana, but were also used for storing meat because Pettit was an avid hunter. 

Lastly, Pettit testified that three of the firearms were his father’s, as well as half of the money, 

and that the other guns were used for hunting. 

We are convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, from our review of the record that any 

error in admission of the evidence did not contribute to the verdict. Thus, any error was 

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Perry, 150 Idaho at 227, 245 P.3d at 979. 

III.

CONCLUSION

Even if the district court erred in admitting testimony regarding who Pettit purchased 

marijuana from, the evidence was de minimis and harmless in light of the other admissible 

evidence showing Pettit’s guilt. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Judge LANSING and Judge MELANSON CONCUR.

 

1 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).