Opinion ID: 874864
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: We may properly consider the hearsay issue in this appeal.

Text: The State contends that, because Watkins failed to designate as an issue or argue in his opening brief on appeal his claim that Dr. Finis' testimony contained inadmissible hearsay, he waived that issue. Watkins responds that the principle behind a court's declining to consider issues not raised in the opening briefthat a court should not consider issues to which the respondent has not had an opportunity to respondis moot in this case because the State was able to address the hearsay issue. We agree. Idaho Appellate Rule 35 states in relevant part that: (a) Appellant's Brief. The brief of the appellant shall contain the following divisions under appropriate headings: .... (4) Issues Presented on Appeal. A list of the issues presented on appeal, expressed in the terms and circumstances of the case but without unnecessary detail. The statement of the issues should be short and concise, and should not be repetitious. The issues shall fairly state the issues presented for review. The statement of issues presented will be deemed to include every subsidiary issue fairly comprised therein. .... (6) Argument. The argument shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented on appeal, the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the transcript and record relied upon. The State relies on State v. Raudebaugh , in which this Court, pursuant to I.A.R. 35, declined to consider a state constitutional claim because the appellant did not address it until his reply brief. 124 Idaho 758, 763, 864 P.2d 596, 601 (1993). The Court in that case stated that [r]aising the issue at this late stage of the briefing does not allow for full consideration of the issue, and we will not address it. Id. The Court in Raudebaugh did acknowledge, however, that the Court has sometimes relaxed the requirement that issues be designated in the opening brief and cited to State v. Prestwich, 116 Idaho 959, 961, 783 P.2d 298, 300 (1989), overruled on other grounds. Id. The Court in Prestwich stated that I.A.R. 35 might be relaxed where the issue[s are]... addressed by authorities cited or arguments contained in the briefs. Id. (citing Bolen v. Baker, 69 Idaho 93, 99, 203 P.2d 376, 379 (1949); State v. Dennard, 102 Idaho 824, 825 n. 2, 642 P.2d 61, 62 n. 2 (1982); State v. Hoisington, 104 Idaho 153, 159, 657 P.2d 17, 23 (1983)); see also Everhart v. Washington County Rd. & Bridge Dep't, 130 Idaho 273, 274-75, 939 P.2d 849, 850-51 (1997). In Everhart, the Court employed this relaxed standard. Everhart failed to designate any issues on appeal; however, because the respondents listed two issues on appeal, providing authority and argument for each, and because Everhart provided argument for those issues as well as authority for one of them, we did not rigidly apply I.A.R. 35 and considered the entirety of the appeal. 130 Idaho at 275, 939 P.2d at 851. We reasoned that [b]oth parties discussed the factual background in sufficient detail [such] that we can decide the issues.... Id. In Suitts v. Nix, the Court further explained that the reason it will not consider issues not addressed in the opening brief is that the issues presented ... are the arguments and authority to which the respondent has an opportunity to respond.... 141 Idaho 706, 708, 117 P.3d 120, 122 (2005). This case comes before us in an unusual procedural posture. In response to the court of appeals' order for supplementary briefing, both parties have had a complete opportunity to develop the factual background and legal arguments relating to Watkins' evidentiary argument. Because the State has responded to Watkins' hearsay claim, the principle underlying I.A.R. 35 has not been violated. In light of our statements in Raudebaugh, Prestwich, and Suitts, we conclude that the evidentiary issue may be considered by this Court. While typically a failure to designate and argue issues in the opening brief will result in a waiver of those issues, given the manner in which the hearsay issue has come before this Court, we address it now.