State v. Ewing: Idaho Supreme Court Validates Annotated Compilation Videos as Rule 1006 Summaries and Re-affirms COVID-19 Speedy-Trial Tolling

Introduction

In State v. Ewing, Docket No. 50452 (Idaho July 17 2025), the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed Clyde K. Ewing’s conviction for first-degree felony murder. The Court addressed four principal assignments of error: (1) violation of the statutory and constitutional right to a speedy trial; (2) admission of a deceased witness’s recorded interview in contravention of the Confrontation Clause; (3) admission of a police-created compilation video that included maps, arrows, and captions; and (4) cumulative error. Although the Court found the Confrontation Clause error meritorious, it held the error harmless and otherwise sustained the district court, thereby solidifying two important points of Idaho law:

The statewide and district COVID-19 emergency orders constituted good cause for tolling Idaho Code §19-3501’s six-month trial deadline—even where the trial court did not expressly march through every Idaho Criminal Rule 28 factor.
An annotated “compilation video” that stitches together excerpts of surveillance recordings, augmented with maps and directional arrows, qualifies as an admissible summary under Idaho Rule of Evidence 1006, provided the underlying footage is itself admissible and made available to the defense.

Summary of the Judgment

Chief Justice Bevan, writing for a unanimous Court, held:

Speedy Trial: Pandemic-driven suspension of jury trials was “good cause” under §19-3501(2); failure to recite Rule 28 factors was non-fatal.
Confrontation Clause: Admission of Samuel Johns’ mother’s videotaped statement violated Crawford because it was testimonial and uncross-examined, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of overwhelming forensic and circumstantial proof.
Compilation Video: The trial court properly admitted the 11-source compilation as a Rule 1006 summary; the added annotations were explanatory, not argumentative, and Birdsell’s in-court testimony gave the defense a full opportunity to probe methodology.
Cumulative Error: With only one harmless constitutional error established, the doctrine was inapplicable.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

State v. Mansfield, 559 P.3d 1177 (Idaho 2024) & State v. Ish, 551 P.3d 746 (Idaho 2024)
Both cases upheld pandemic-related trial delays as good cause. Ewing follows these decisions, extending their logic by approving speedy-trial tolling even where the trial court skipped a factor-by-factor Rule 28 analysis.
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) and its progeny (Davis, Clark, Stanfield)
Provide the Confrontation Clause framework. The Court’s candid acknowledgment that neither litigant nor trial judge cited Crawford underscores its continuing centrality.
State v. Barlow, 746 P.2d 1032 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987)
Earlier Idaho authority on Rule 1006 summaries. Ewing modernizes Barlow by applying its “general result” logic to multimedia evidence.
Federal persuasive authorities on compilation evidence: United States v. Moore, 843 F. App’x 498 (4th Cir. 2021); United States v. Fechner, 952 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2020); United States v. Crawford, 2024 WL 1908799 (D.D.C. 2024).
Idaho structural precedents: Oldenburg (inherent rule-making power), Bodenbach (abuse-of-discretion prongs), and Weigle (demonstrative vs. substantive exhibits).

2. Legal Reasoning

a. Speedy Trial
The statutory provision (§19-3501) explicitly allows delay “unless good cause to the contrary is shown.” COVID-19 orders satisfied “good cause”: the Court exercised inherent administrative power to protect public health, and prior decisions (Mansfield, Ish) already deemed those orders constitutionally sufficient. Although Rule 28 wording (“shall consider”) suggests a mandatory factor check, the Court treated the pandemic as self-evident good cause — rendering the trial judge’s omission harmless.

b. Confrontation Clause
The video of the deceased witness was plainly testimonial. Because Ewing never had a chance to cross-examine, admission violated Crawford. Harmless-error analysis turned on whether the improper evidence “contributed to the verdict.” Given robust physical, forensic, and motive evidence, the Court concluded the error’s probative force was dwarfed by legitimate proof.

c. Rule 1006 Compilation Video
Key analytical moves:

Definition of “summary” encompasses curated composites of voluminous recordings.
Annotations (maps, arrows, timestamps) are analogous to a witness using a laser-pointer or chalkboard during testimony; they are not independent testimonial assertions.
Underlying videos were available to the defense and presumptively admissible; therefore, the procedural predicates of Rule 1006 were met.
Convenience requirement: considering >11 cameras yielding hours of footage, individual playback would “greatly prolong the trial” — exactly what Rule 1006 is designed to prevent.
Discretionary placement of the exhibit in the jury room is permissible for demonstrative aids (Weigle).

3. Impact on Idaho Law

Speedy-Trial Motions Post-COVID-19: Trial courts may safely rely on pandemic-era administrative orders as categorical good cause, though they are cautioned to articulate Rule 28 factors for the record.
Multimedia Evidence: Law enforcement-generated compilations with explanatory graphics are now explicitly sanctioned under Idaho Rule 1006, provided the defense has access to the raw data. Prosecutors can more confidently streamline complex timelines without fear that editing or annotation per se renders the exhibit inadmissible.
Confrontation Clause Vigilance: Even though the error was harmless here, the decision serves as a reminder that prosecutors must ensure unavailable declarants’ testimonial statements are not introduced absent prior cross-examination.
Cumulative-Error Threshold Clarified: One harmless constitutional error, standing alone, will not invoke the doctrine.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Speedy Trial (Statutory vs. Constitutional): Idaho’s statute demands trial within six months but allows delay for “good cause.” The federal and state constitutions guarantee a prompt trial but use a flexible balancing test (not at issue here because the statutory claim controlled).
Idaho Criminal Rule 28: A procedural checklist courts use to decide if “good cause” exists to continue a case. Factors include length of delay, prior continuances, emergency declarations, defendant’s objections, and prejudice.
Rule 1006 Summary Evidence: Lets a party present a chart, graph, or video that summarizes voluminous underlying material (think of a highlight reel instead of watching hours of raw footage). Requirement: the raw material must be admissible and available to the other side.
Confrontation Clause/Ttestimonial Statements: Under Crawford, if a statement is made primarily for use in prosecution (e.g., a police interview), it is “testimonial.” Such statements can only reach the jury if the witness is unavailable and was previously cross-examined.
Harmless Error: Even when a constitutional violation occurs, a conviction is upheld if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not affect the verdict.

Conclusion

State v. Ewing fortifies Idaho precedent in two modern litigation arenas—pandemic management and digital evidence presentation—while remaining faithful to bedrock constitutional doctrine. Trial judges may regard COVID-19 emergency orders as per se good cause for statutory speedy-trial purposes but should still create Rule 28 records for prudence. More significantly for daily courtroom practice, the Court’s imprimatur on annotated compilation videos under Rule 1006 provides a clear blueprint for prosecutors and law-enforcement technicians seeking to present complex surveillance chronologies to juries. Defense counsel, in turn, gain notice that challenges must focus on the accuracy or fairness of the compilation rather than the mere fact of editing or annotation. The decision thus balances judicial efficiency with evidentiary reliability while preserving defendants’ confrontation rights through rigorous harmless-error review.