1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 41541 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TROY CAMERON YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Opinion No. 79 Filed: September 24, 2014 Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Michael J. Griffin, District Judge. Hon. Penny E. Friedlander, Magistrate. Order of the district court, on intermediate appeal from the magistrate, affirming judgment of conviction for domestic battery in the presence of a child, affirmed. John M. Adams, Kootenai County Public Defender; Jay Logsdon, Deputy Public Defender, Coeur d’Alene, for appellant. Jay Logsdon argued. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Russell J. Spencer, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Russell J. Spencer argued. ________________________________________________ MELANSON, Judge Troy Cameron Young appeals from the district court’s order on intermediate appeal affirming Young’s judgment of conviction for domestic battery in the presence of a child. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURES Young and the victim are the biological father and mother of a child. Young and the victim were never married to each other and were not cohabitating at the time of the battery. Neither parent had custody of the child, and the victim’s parental rights to the child had previously been terminated. A birthday party was held for the child in a public venue. Many of the child’s friends and relatives, both adults and children, attended the party, including Young and the victim. Young became upset and demanded that the child’s guardian force the victim to 2 submit to a drug test, which the guardian declined, explaining it was an improper setting for the request. Later, when the victim and the child were off to the side of the other guests, Young began to leave. He started walking up the stairs to leave the area, turned around, said something profane, ran down the stairs, and tackled the victim in the presence of the child. Young was over six feet tall and weighed 190 pounds. The force of his tackle drove the victim to the ground, where her head was injured when it struck the ground. Young was pulled off the victim, after which he left the party. The state charged Young with domestic battery in the presence of a child. I.C. § 18-918(3)(b). Young argued that the domestic battery statute did not apply in his case because he and the victim were not “household member[s].” The magistrate held that, despite the asserted lack of a relationship between Young, the victim and their biological child, Young and the victim could still be household members because the plain language of the statute includes biological parents of the same child in the definition of “household member.” At trial, Young sought to present evidence that would support two defenses--defense of others and necessity. He also requested jury instructions on the two defenses. The magistrate required Young to make an offer of proof before allowing him to offer evidence to the jury supporting the two defenses. Young’s offer of proof included evidence that he knew the victim had an ongoing drug problem; in the past the victim was labeled a hazard by Child Protection Services in Washington and was not allowed to be around the child without supervision; the victim made previous suicide attempts; the victim had stated that, when she tried to get off drugs, she became suicidal; in the past the victim had taken and consumed the child’s medications, supposedly to see what they were like; in the past the victim was stopped by police while driving a car and consumed all of the drugs in her possession before the police could get to her, resulting in an overdose; in the past the victim had tried to take the child from the legal guardian without permission; and, at the party, Young thought the victim was attempting to leave with the child. The magistrate determined there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support either defense and refused to give Young’s requested jury instructions. A jury found Young guilty. He appealed to the district court, which affirmed. Young again appeals. 3 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW For an appeal from the district court, sitting in its appellate capacity over a case from the magistrate division, this Court’s standard of review is the same as expressed by the Idaho Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviews the magistrate record to determine whether there is substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate’s findings of fact and whether the magistrate’s conclusions of law follow from those findings. State v. Korn, 148 Idaho 413, 415, 224 P.3d 480, 482 (2009). If those findings are so supported and the conclusions following therefrom, and if the district court affirmed the magistrate’s decision, we affirm the district court’s decision as a matter of pr。