The Idaho Court of Appeals recently affirmed the convictions of Scott Howard Holmes for multiple counts of video voyeurism and other crimes, while also reversing a restitution order against him. This ruling, issued on November 4, 2026, affects Holmes, his victims, and the legal landscape surrounding restitution in Idaho.

Holmes faced serious charges stemming from two separate cases that were consolidated for the appeal. He was found guilty of six counts of video voyeurism and was also convicted of burglary, sexual exploitation of a child, and being a persistent violator of the law. The court's decision is significant as it illustrates the complexities of criminal sentencing and the rights of defendants during proceedings.

Background

In the first case, Docket No. 52430, Holmes' ex-girlfriend reported to the police that he had sent nude photographs of her to her daughter and niece. This led to charges of six counts of video voyeurism. At trial, a jury found Holmes guilty of these charges, and he admitted to being a persistent violator of the law.

In the second case, Docket No. 52431, Holmes' ex-girlfriend expressed concerns that he had placed a tracking device on her vehicle and a listening device in her home. A search of Holmes' cell phone revealed video footage of the ex-girlfriend’s fifteen-year-old daughter engaged in sexual activity. Officers also discovered hidden cameras in the ex-girlfriend’s home. Holmes was subsequently charged with burglary, two counts of video voyeurism, sexual exploitation of a child, and being a persistent violator of the law.

During the proceedings, Holmes attempted to represent himself but later had an attorney appointed. His behavior during the trial was disruptive, leading to his removal from the courtroom during the sentencing hearing. The district court ultimately sentenced him to consecutive and concurrent sentences, including life imprisonment for some of the charges.

The Ruling

The Idaho Court of Appeals upheld Holmes' convictions and sentences but reversed the restitution order of $1,024 that had been imposed on him. The court ruled that Holmes did not demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in not allowing him to make a statement at sentencing. The opinion stated, "Holmes has failed to show the district court abused its discretion by not asking him if he would like to make a statement at the sentencing hearing after he was removed from the courtroom due to disruptive behavior."

Judges Fleming and Petty concurred with the ruling. The court noted that the record did not contain evidence to support the restitution amount, which led to the decision to reverse the order and remand the case for further proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of having a proper evidentiary record for any restitution order.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Holmes and his victims. By affirming the convictions, the court reinforced the seriousness of video voyeurism and sexual exploitation of minors. The decision also highlights the importance of proper procedures regarding restitution in criminal cases. The court's reversal of the restitution order indicates that defendants must be given the opportunity to contest restitution claims and that courts must base such orders on adequate evidence.

Going forward, this case may influence how courts handle restitution requests in similar cases. It underscores the necessity for clear evidence to support any claims for economic loss and the importance of procedural fairness for defendants. The ruling may also serve as a precedent for future cases involving restitution in Idaho.

What's Next

The case has been remanded to the district court to allow for a proper evidentiary hearing regarding the restitution order. Holmes may have the opportunity to contest the amount of restitution that was initially ordered. Details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing.