ST. ANTHONY, Idaho — Almost immediately following an EastIdahoNews.com story about the sentencing of 22-year-old Candon Dahle, misinformation about the ruling, the charges, and even the judge began to spread online like wildfire.

Similar to a game of telephone, online “crime influencers” and others began making posts about the case. They were outraged that Dahle was given a 180-day jail sentence and eight years of probation following a plea agreement between the prosecution and defense that convicted Dahle on two counts of felony injury to a child.

Many of these posts included false details about the case that spread across multiple platforms.

Misinformation was shared about the location of the case, the charges Dahle was convicted of, and the basic details of the sentencing for the crime. What stood out most to many was how little these posts seemed to understand the court process that resulted in Dahle’s sentencing.

According to a news release from the Idaho Supreme Court, District Judge Steven Boyce, who ruled on Dahle’s sentencing, and his family have received death threats due to the case.

“In one instance, people thought they saw the judge at a local fair and encouraged others to track him down. Court staff have been told to expect a group that is coming to ‘get’ the judge,” says the release. “In messages and posts, people have urged the judge and his children to be sexually assaulted themselves. The volume and detail of the threats have required additional security precautions at public expense.”

Many of the online posts have claimed that Boyce sentenced a “convicted rapist” to probation and 180 days of local jail time. This is false.

Dahle is not a convicted rapist and has never been charged with rape, though many online commenters have wondered why he wasn’t. The crimes in Dahle’s case do not fit the legal description.

Dahle was initially charged in two counties, Fremont and Bingham, both on one count of felony lewd conduct with a child.

According to Idaho statute, lewd conduct with a child is defined as “any person who shall commit any lewd or lascivious act or acts upon or with the body or any part or member thereof of a minor child under the age of sixteen (16) years.”

To resolve the case without going to trial, Dahle and his defense team, along with the prosecution and the victim and her family, decided to try mediation.

What is mediation?

According to the Idaho Supreme Court, mediation is “the process by which a neutral mediator assists the parties (defined as the prosecuting attorney on behalf of the state and the defendant) in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement as to issues in the case. The issues may include sentencing options, restitution awards, admissibility of evidence and any other issues which will facilitate the resolution of the case.”

Essentially, both sides meet with a judge to argue for what they think justice should be. In this case, District Judge Dane Watkins Jr. was assigned to conduct mediation.

If both parties can reach an agreement, the defendant will sign a plea agreement, and they will offer this resolution to the judge.

In Dahle’s case, the mediation process was longer than usual, according to multiple victim impact statements at the sentencing hearing.

“Immediately following an emotional mediation, anger was expressed (by the defendant) that misdemeanor charges weren’t offered,” the victim’s mother said. “I had just watched my daughter express the devastation she would feel if the charges were reduced. After hours of mediation, and Candon refusing a sex offender registry, she was told that she would face trial. She made a painful sacrifice, but hoped it would heal the family.”

Fremont County prosecutor Lindsey Blake even stated that the mediation process was extremely lengthy.

“Given that we held mediation, I’ll say it’s probably the longest mediation that I’ve been involved in. We mediated for hours to try and reach a resolution,” Blake said. “All parties are involved in mediation, in coming up with a resolution that would result in something short of ending up in trial.”

At the end of the mediation, seemingly partially due to exhaustion by both sides, a plea agreement was written – that Dahle would agree to plead guilty in Fremont County to amended charges of two counts of felony injury to a child. In return, the prosecution agreed to drop the case in Bingham County and not require Dahle to register as a sex offender while recommending a term of probation at sentencing.

The case then advanced to Boyce’s courtroom for sentencing.

According to Idaho statute, injury to a child is defined as, “Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of such child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits such child to be placed in such situation that its person or health is endangered.”

Idaho Code 18-8304 shows that injury to a child is not a charge that requires the defendant to register as a sex offender.

Here is a list of charges that do require defendants to register, although this does not mean they will have to, for instance, if the plea agreement does not require them to.

The ruling

If a plea agreement is offered during a sentencing, a judge does not have to accept it.

There are two types of plea agreements that the parties can decide on – binding or nonbinding.

A nonbinding plea agreement means the judge does not have to agree to either party’s recommendations for sentencing and can issue a sentencing of his own creation.

A binding plea agreement means the judge either has to accept the entire plea agreement or reject it fully. If the judge rejects it, the defendant can withdraw their guilty plea, and the parties must try to come up with a resolution. If they can’t, the case goes to trial.

Dahle’s case included a binding plea agreement, which meant Boyce did not have to accept it. If he rejected it, the resolution process would start over, potentially retraumatizing the victim by forcing her to go through the case, mediation and hearings for a second time.

All parties are involved in mediation, in coming up with a resolution that would result in something short of ending up in trial.

–Lindsey Blake, Fremont County prosecutor

During her victim impact statement, the victim asked Boyce to reject the plea agreement, stating that she did not believe that it serves justice.

“I can’t ever recall a sentencing where a victim asked me to reject the binding plea agreement,” Boyce said following her statement. “And after listening to the statements, I sat here and considered, should I do that? Should I just unwind the deal you reached? I determined not to do that, and I’m still not going to do that.”

Boyce acknowledged the difficulty of the case and stressed that it’s important for victims to come forward so abusers can face some kind of consequence, even if it’s not what they hope for.

“It’s a tough system, it’s certainly not a perfect system,” Boyce said. “It puts people in all kinds of difficult positions.”

Threatening a judge is a crime

As for the backlash Boyce received, state of Idaho statutes are clear that threats against a judge will end in prosecution.

Multiple felonies and misdemeanors can be charged if you attempt to threaten a judge, court staff, or elected official. You could be charged with:

• Threats against state officials of the executive, legislative or judicial branch or elected officials of a county or city.
• Contempt
• Criminal conspiracy

All of these could potentially end with sentences between months in jail, life in prison, or the death penalty.

“It is never acceptable to threaten harm to a judge or to intervene in the independent, impartial handling of a case. If courts decided matters based on public opinion instead of evidence and legal standards, the consequences would reach far beyond this case — affecting business disputes, criminal prosecutions, and even the ability of citizens to challenge government actions in court,” the Idaho Supreme Court news release states.

“The Idaho judicial branch urges an immediate end to these threats and calls on everyone discussing the case to pause and become acquainted with its facts. Idaho judges are accountable in multiple ways to their government and their public. Criticism of judicial decisions is fair and expected in a free society. Promising violence is never acceptable.”