In November, Woodland sentenced Craw to 3-7 years in prison on two felony aggravated battery charges for severely beating a 30-year-old Challis woman at the Bayhorse campground the night of January 30, 2009.

In December, Woodland denied defense attorney Jim Archibald’s motion for a new trial or to vacate one of the charges. Archibald then filed a notice of appeal, which the Idaho Supreme Court received in January.

District court has until April 19 to file records and trial transcripts, after which the Supreme Court will review the case and decide whether or not to rule on Craw’s appeal.

Archibald admitted there was enough evidence to convict Craw of aggravated battery, but that jurors might have been confused or believed they were obligated to compromise when they convicted him on the alternative charge.

Aggravated battery with intent to commit a serious felony – rape – was the alternative charge Prosecutor Shawn Glen offered jurors if they felt there was insufficient evidence to convict Craw of rape.

A Custer County jury on September 25 found Craw guilty of the two aggravated battery charges but not guilty of two other felony counts.

The effect of overturning the guilty verdict on battery with intent to commit rape is that Craw would be eligible for parole in two instead of two and a half years, Prosecutor Glen said.

Arguments

Archibald argued the written jury instructions didn’t include the option of finding Craw guilty or not guilty on the alternative charge, as with the other counts. That might have confused jurors, he said.

Glen argued jurors were intelligent enough to know they had the option of guilty or not guilty, since that was written out for the other three counts. The court must determine whether the jury instructions as a whole, not individually, fairly and accurately reflect applicable laws, she wrote.

That jurors deliberated for seven and a half hours showed they took their jobs seriously, not that they were confused as Archibald suggested, Glen said. Also, the defense, prosecution and Judge Woodland all reviewed the jury instructions at trial and found no problems.

There was plenty of evidence Craw committed aggravated battery and intended to rape the victim, Glen wrote.

Woodland said in November he was satisfied there was enough evidence to convict Craw on the alternative charge, so he would not grant a new trial based on lack of evidence, but that he would take Archibald’s jury confusion argument under advisement.

“It is clear to this court, considering the instructions as a whole, the questions asked on the verdict form were understood by the jury and that they could find the defendant not guilty…” Woodland wrote in his December order denying the motion for a new trial, “and that they determined based on all of the evidence and all of the instructions that the defendant was guilty of battery with intent to commit a serious felony.”

Appeal

In Craw’s appeal, attorney Archibald raised several questions for the Idaho Supreme Court to consider. Was the jury verdict consistent and were jurors properly instructed? Did Judge Woodland err in admitting “jailhouse snitch” testimony that was not disclosed to the defense until the day of the trial? Should the judge have granted a new trial on the alternative charge? Did Woodland make a mistake in sentencing Craw prior to denying the motion for a new trial?

Craw’s appeal will be handled by the state appellate public defender’s office in Boise.

Juror speaks

“No, I was not confused,” juror Melissa DuBois told The Challis Messenger, and neither was anyone else on the jury. “We all took such careful, careful steps to ensure that justice was served. That jury was so mature. I would want any of those guys on my jury.” The deliberation took so long because jurors were “so very careful to examine the evidence and place the right verdict on each charge,” she said. They knew they had the option of finding Craw guilty or not guilty on each count.

“We did our job and we all slept like a baby the next night,” after the trial, said DuBois.

“We did not take this man’s life lightly, as he did hers,” DuBois said. She noted it was a very cold winter night and “He got lucky. She could have died.”

The judge and attorneys did not call DuBois to ask her about the verdict.