State of Idaho v. Jennifer Leigh Chastain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52663

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 12, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JENNIFER LEIGH CHASTAIN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Patrick Miller, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of five years, with a minimum
period of confinement of two years, for destruction of evidence and conspiracy to
intimidate, impede, influence, or prevent the attendance of a witness, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Jennifer Leigh Chastain was found guilty of destruction of evidence, Idaho Code § 18-
2603; and conspiracy to intimidate, impede, influence, or prevent the attendance of a witness, I.C.
§§ 18-2604, 18-1701. The district court imposed a concurrent sentence of five years with two
years determinate on each count and suspended the sentences and placed Chastain on probation
for a period of five years. Chastain appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion
by imposing an excessive sentence and failing to withhold judgment.

1
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984);
State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982).
After a person has been convicted of a crime, a district court may, in its discretion, withhold
judgment. I.C. § 19-2601(3); State v. Edghill, 134 Idaho 218, 219, 999 P.2d 255, 256 (Ct. App.
2000); State v. Trejo, 132 Idaho 872, 880, 979 P.2d 1230, 1238 (Ct. App. 1999). Refusal to grant
a withheld judgment will not be deemed an abuse of discretion if the trial court has sufficient
information to determine that a withheld judgment would be inappropriate. State v. Geier, 109
Idaho 963, 965, 712 P.2d 664, 666 (Ct. App. 1985).
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Chastain’s judgment of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

2