Main image: Chad Daybell (John Roark/The Post-Register/Pool); Top left inset: Joshua “JJ” Vallow (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children); Bottom left inset: Tylee Ryan (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children); Top right inset: Tammy Daybell (East Idaho News)
Prosecutors hoping to put a “doomsday cult” author to death for several counts of murder almost found one of those charges dismissed due to an incorrect series of dates on the indictment.
Chad Guy Daybell, 55, is accused of three counts of murder.
The defendant allegedly conspired with his second wife, convicted killer Lori Vallow Daybell, 50, to kill his first wife, Tammy Daybell, 49, along with Tylee Ashlyn Ryan, 16, Vallow Daybell’s biological daughter from a prior marriage, and Joshua Jaxon “J.J.” Vallow, 7, Vallow Daybell’s adopted son in September and October 2019.
Tylee was last seen alive on Sept. 8, 2019. During Chad Daybell’s trial, it was established that J.J. was likely killed sometime during the early morning hours of Sept. 23, 2019. Tammy Daybell died on Oct. 19, 2019. But the charging instrument mixes up some of those dates.
In the end, the court found the error was a clerical mishap that did not call for such a drastic alteration of the legal landscape.
Here’s how it all went down in Ada County Courtroom #400 on Thursday afternoon.
The judge spots a problem
The state rested its case on day 25 of the monthslong undertaking, and the court considered a perfunctory defense motion for acquittal.
“There is one particular issue that has arisen in the charging document,” District Judge Steven Boyce said on Thursday afternoon.
The May 2021 original indictment alleged J.J. was murdered “on or between the 22nd and 23rd of September 2019,” the judge explained.
The amended indictment filed in February 2024, however, jettisons the believed — and testified to — date range and alleges J.J. was killed “on or between the 8th and 9th day of September, 2019.”
“When I look at the evidence that’s been presented here from the state, the evidence not only does not support a finding of the dates between the eighth and ninth of September but contradicts that in — that — J.J. Vallow was clearly alive after the ninth of September from many witnesses, including testimony from today,” Boyce said. “So, I have some concern that the charging language, which would control in this case, in the amended indictment cites a date range that does not comport with the evidence. And, I’m concerned about instructing jurors with evidence that I believe was never presented here at trial.”
A count from Chad Daybell’s amended indictment containing incorrect dates for the alleged murder of J.J. Vallow. (State of Idaho)
The mistake — which swapped in the dates of Tylee’s murder for the dates of J.J.’s murder — was only first noticed on Thursday.
“I understand the state may not have been aware of that,” Boyce went on. “It wasn’t argued by the defense but the court has its own duty to also review the evidence … and point out anything that may be considered for a potential judgment of acquittal.”
The judge drew a distinction between “on or about” and “on or between” boilerplate — two common bits of legalese that sound similar but have decidedly different meanings. Boyce noted “on or between” language means within a date range, while “on or about” language might allow “further deviance” from dates listed.
All this to say, Boyce said, the issue with the state’s drafting was the more exact — and obviously wrong — “on or between” language.
Both sides spar over the error
Prosecutor Ingrid Beatty, in response to a question from the court, asked for several days to consider the issue and return with an argument to address those concerns on Monday morning.
Defense attorney John Prior framed the issue as, perhaps, a trap he set for the state — by pointing out that he previously agreed, during a much-earlier hearing, to allow prosecutors to “make whatever amendments they wanted.” Pushing this suggestion, the defense attorney expressed umbrage at the idea of allowing the state to try and change horses after already resting their case during the hearing on the defense’s motion for a directed verdict.
At least one source of law is on the defense’s side.
Idaho Criminal Rule 7 (e) reads: “The court may permit amendment of a complaint, an information or indictment at any time before the prosecution rests if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.”
The judge ultimately gave the state two hours to craft an argument on why the court should not dismiss the murder count related to J.J.
Excuses and recriminations
After the pause, the state offered ideas for solving the problem in their favor — including: (1) that the error was not substantive; (2) that a “broad” rule allows clerical mistakes to be corrected in the court record; and (3) that the state could be allowed to re-open their case.
Prior stressed that any changes to the indictment at this stage in the trial pose “substantial due process” problems for his client — the kind of problems that would almost certainly come up on appeal. As for the above-mentioned rule of criminal procedure, the defense attorney categorized it as controlling because it is specific, while prosecutors wanted to correct their mistake using a “vague” rule.
“I wasn’t going to key the prosecutor off that they had a problem,” Prior said. “And if the court didn’t catch it and there were subsequently a problem, someone else would have caught it and would have corrected it in the future. But they don’t get to correct it now.”
The defense attorney also framed the issue in terms of fairness, noting that jurors had already heard the state’s evidence based on the indictment, and the defense was about to start its case-in-chief.
Adding insult to the self-inflicted injury, Daybell’s lawyer said the state had four lawyers looking at their work for months, and they are only now trying to change things after being caught in the wrong.
“They made the allegations,” Prior said. “They’re stuck with their indictment.”
The ruling
The judge then called another recess to confer with his own counsel and perform some legal research.
In a bench ruling, Boyce denied the defense’s motion to dismiss the murder count related to J.J.
Key to the finding was that the court did not grant the state permission for count four to be changed in the first place, the judge said. And, in that regard, Boyce agreed that the incorrect date range in the amended indictment was simply a clerical error.
The court then weighed potential prejudice to the defendant against the state’s interest in seeking justice. On that front, Boyce said, the defense has had years before trial, and now weeks of trial, to prepare for the dates that are actually related to J.J.’s murder.
Daybell, the court ruled, would not be prejudiced here.
The judge, however, declined to determine exactly how the problem would be solved — instead only ruling against the defense motion to dismiss the count but signaling that he was likely to allow either amendment or for a jury instruction that cures the clerical error.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
