The Idaho Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction of Pompeyo Salazar-Cabrera for misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter, concluding a complex legal journey that began with felony charges and involved multiple court proceedings across different judicial levels.
In an opinion filed Feb. 13, 2026, Chief Justice Bevan wrote that the court affirmed the district court's intermediate appellate decision upholding Salazar-Cabrera's judgment of conviction and sentence. The case originated in Nez Perce County, where Salazar-Cabrera initially faced felony vehicular manslaughter charges under Idaho Code Section 18-4006(3)(c).
The proceedings took an unusual turn when a Nez Perce County jury acquitted Salazar-Cabrera on the original felony vehicular manslaughter charge but convicted him on the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter. This type of split verdict allows juries to find defendants guilty of less serious charges when they believe the evidence doesn't support the more severe offense but does establish criminal liability for a related crime.
Following his initial conviction, Salazar-Cabrera successfully obtained a new trial based on what the court described as an erroneous jury instruction. This development required the case to proceed to retrial, but only on the misdemeanor charge since the jury had already acquitted him on the felony count.
Before the retrial commenced, the magistrate court judge assigned to the case held a pretrial conference with both parties. During this meeting, the judge made what would later become a central issue in the appeal: he assured Salazar-Cabrera that no jail time would be imposed if he was convicted, given that the remaining charge was only a misdemeanor offense.
Despite this assurance, the proceedings took another unexpected turn. Following Salazar-Cabrera's conviction at the retrial, the court sentenced him to 150 days in jail, directly contradicting the earlier promise made during the pretrial conference.
Salazar-Cabrera responded to this development by filing an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, arguing that he should be resentenced to a term that excluded any jail time based on the judge's earlier commitment. Under Idaho Criminal Rule 35, defendants can seek correction of illegal sentences or reduction of sentences within specified time limits.
The magistrate court's response to this motion was minimal. The court reduced Salazar-Cabrera's jail sentence by only one day, from 150 days to 149 days, but otherwise denied the motion. This decision prompted Salazar-Cabrera to appeal to the district court level.
The district court took a different approach to the case. Rather than affirming the magistrate court's decision, the district court vacated the sentence entirely and remanded the case for further proceedings. This action suggested that the district court found merit in Salazar-Cabrera's arguments about the improper sentencing.
The case then proceeded through Idaho's appellate system, ultimately reaching the state's highest court. The Idaho Supreme Court heard arguments from Jonathan Hally of Blewett Mushlitz Hally, LLP, representing Salazar-Cabrera, and Kasey L. Jones from the Idaho Attorney General's office, representing the state under Attorney General Raúl Labrador.
The case demonstrates several important aspects of Idaho's criminal justice system. First, it illustrates how juries can reach nuanced verdicts by acquitting defendants on serious charges while still finding them guilty of related lesser offenses. This reflects the legal principle that prosecutors can charge defendants with multiple related crimes, and juries can pick and choose which charges are supported by the evidence.
Second, the case highlights the significance of judicial statements made during pretrial proceedings. When judges make assurances about potential sentences, defendants may reasonably rely on those statements in making decisions about plea negotiations and trial strategy.
The procedural history also demonstrates Idaho's multi-tiered court system in action. The case moved from magistrate court to district court and ultimately to the Idaho Supreme Court, with each level reviewing different aspects of the proceedings and legal issues.
Vehicular manslaughter charges in Idaho carry different penalties depending on whether they are classified as felonies or misdemeanors. The distinction often depends on factors such as the defendant's intent, degree of negligence, and whether alcohol or other aggravating factors were involved in the incident.
While the Supreme Court opinion affirmed the lower court's decision, the specific reasoning behind the court's analysis and the final resolution of Salazar-Cabrera's sentencing issues would require review of the complete opinion to fully understand the legal principles applied.
The case serves as an example of how criminal appeals can involve complex procedural issues beyond the underlying facts of the alleged crime, including questions about jury instructions, judicial conduct, and sentencing procedures.