## Facts

- Charley Thompson, Jr. had previously been convicted of possessing unlawfully taken game, and his hunting privileges were revoked through January 1, 1996.
- On September 9, 1995, while that revocation was still in effect, an Idaho Fish and Game officer approached Thompson at a logging camp in plain clothes, posing as another hunter.
- Not knowing the man was an officer, Thompson spoke at length about his hunting history and described details about his compound bow and arrows.
- Thompson told the officer he was waiting for coworkers so they could go elk hunting together, and said he was not sure whether he would hunt or would “call” elk for the others.
- Thompson also stated that if his coworkers did not return soon, he would go hunting alone.
- After the conversation, the officer watched Thompson and a companion gather hunting gear and change into camouflage clothing commonly used for bowhunting.
- The officer observed Thompson retrieve a compound bow and arrows from his truck and head away from camp toward the woods.
- When the officer contacted Thompson again, Thompson had a string release aid strapped to his wrist and an elk call in his mouth.
- Thompson’s quiver contained arrows, including a type used to kill elk.
- Thompson admitted he did not have a valid hunting license, and the officer issued a citation.
- The state charged Thompson with hunting while his hunting privileges were revoked (Idaho Code § 36-1402(d)).
- A magistrate found Thompson guilty, and the district court affirmed on intermediate appeal.
- Thompson appealed to the Idaho Court of Appeals, arguing that the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was “hunting.”

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Thompson was “hunting,” as defined by Idaho law, while his hunting privileges were revoked.

## Decision

- The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court held that a rational trier of fact could find Thompson was “hunting” within Idaho’s statutory definition.
- The court rejected Thompson’s narrow argument that he was not hunting because he had not yet taken game; the statutory definition covers acts done in an effort to take wildlife, whether or not an animal is actually taken.
- Thompson’s statements about going elk hunting, his decision to go alone if necessary, his camouflage and bowhunting equipment, and his use of an elk call supported the magistrate’s finding that he was engaged in hunting activity while revoked.

## Legal Principles

- A conviction will be upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder could conclude the elements were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, with evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
- Idaho’s statutory definition of “hunt” is broader than actually killing or capturing wildlife; it includes pursuing or acting in an effort to take wildlife, even if no wildlife is taken.
- The hunting element may be proven through circumstantial evidence, including a defendant’s statements, possession of hunting equipment, and conduct consistent with beginning or carrying out a hunt.
- Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or second-guess reasonable inferences drawn by the trial court acting as fact-finder.

## Conclusion

Because Idaho law defines “hunting” to include conduct undertaken in an effort to take wildlife, and because Thompson’s own statements and field behavior (changing into camouflage, carrying a bow and elk-killing arrows, wearing a release aid, and using an elk call while heading into the woods) provided substantial evidence of hunting activity, the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction for hunting while his privileges were revoked.


State v. Thompson, 948 P.2d 174 (1997)