Idaho Supreme Court rules in Moore appeal
Kenneth Jorgensen of the Idaho Attorney General’s Office appeared before the Idaho Supreme Court to argue in favor of the appeal in State of Idaho vs. Daniel Lee Moore for the alleged murder of Dr. Brian Drake.
(Screen shot)
BOISE — The Idaho Supreme Court both reversed and affirmed portions of a First District Court ruling on admission of evidence in connection to a first-degree murder case against a local chiropractor.
Dr. Daniel Lee Moore, a chiropractor in Bonners Ferry, was charged with second-degree murder for the 2020 shooting of fellow chiropractor Dr. Brian Drake, who had offices in both in Bonners Ferry and Kootenai County.
Drake was shot in the back through a window while sitting in his office talking to his wife on the phone at the end of the day, Justice Gregory W. Moeller wrote in the opinion, issued by the court Wednesday. During a police interrogation of Moore, he invoked his right to an attorney at least three times; however, his requests were ignored and the interrogation continued, Moeller said.
In the state high court ruling, the district court decisions were reversed in part and affirmed in part.
While Moore eventually confessed to the crime, the district court suppressed that confession for all purposes, agreeing with a defense motion that Moore’s Miranda rights had been violated. The district court later dismissed the case, concluding that because the state had relied on the tainted confession in the preliminary hearing, there was insufficient evidence to support a showing of probable cause in the case.
The Idaho Supreme Court took up the case after prosecutors appealed the district court’s decision dismissing the case.
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling that Moore’s confession is inadmissible and can’t be used to establish their case. However, the Court reversed the ruling that the confession would also be inadmissible for impeachment purposes if the state ever refiles charges against Moore because his confession was not coerced and involuntary.
Justices noted in their decision that “[a]n illegally obtained confession should not give a defendant license to perjure himself at trial,” unless “coercion is found.”
The court affirmed the district court’s decision granting the motion to dismiss pursuant to Idaho Code section 19-815A. The court noted that if the state refiled the murder charge against Moore, his confession could be only used for impeachment purposes if Moore testifies and denies the committing the crime.