abuse of discretion standard in Idaho

2002THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN IMPOSING A SENTENCE OF FIFTEEN YEARS FIXED An appellate review of a sentence is based on an abuse of discretion standard. *567 State v. Burdett, 134 Idaho 271, 276 , 1 P.3d 299, 304 (Ct.App.2000).

2002THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN IMPOSING A SENTENCE OF FIFTEEN YEARS FIXED An appellate review of a sentence is based on an abuse of discretion standard. *567 State v. Burdett, 134 Idaho 271, 276 , 1 P.3d 299, 304 (Ct.App.2000).

2026Under the abuse of discretion standard, this Court asks whether the trial court: “(1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason.” Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856 , 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018).

2026Under the abuse of discretion standard, this Court reviews whether the trial court: “(1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason.” Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856 , 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018). 6 III.

2026Garcia-Ongay, 169 Idaho at 5 , 490 P.3d at 5 ; State v. Egersdorf, 126 Idaho 684, 687 , 889 P.2d 118, 121 (Ct. App. 1995).

2026Garcia-Ongay, 169 Idaho at 5 , 490 P.3d at 5 ; State v. Egersdorf, 126 Idaho 684, 687 , 889 P.2d 118, 121 (Ct. App. 1995).

1997Sentence Review An appellate review of a sentence is based on an abuse of discretion standard. *364 State v. Wolfe, 99 Idaho 382 , 582 P.2d 728 (1978).

1997Sentence Review An appellate review of a sentence is based on an abuse of discretion standard. *364 State v. Wolfe, 99 Idaho 382 , 582 P.2d 728 (1978).

2001A. Standard of Review This Court reviews the magistrate’s award of child support under an abuse of discretion standard, Henderson v. Smith, 128 Idaho 444, 451 , 915 P.2d 6, 13 (1996)(citing Noble v. Fisher, 126 Idaho 885, 888 , 894 P.2d 118, 121 (1995)), and conducts a multi-tiered inquiry: “(1) whether the trial court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the trial court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (3) whether the trial court reached its decision by

2001A. Standard of Review This Court reviews the magistrate’s award of child support under an abuse of discretion standard, Henderson v. Smith, 128 Idaho 444, 451 , 915 P.2d 6, 13 (1996)(citing Noble v. Fisher, 126 Idaho 885, 888 , 894 P.2d 118, 121 (1995)), and conducts a multi-tiered inquiry: “(1) whether the trial court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the trial court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (3) whether the trial court reached its decision by

2026This Court “review[s] a criminal sentence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Calley, 140 Idaho 663 , 665–66, 99 P.3d 616 , 618–19 (2004) (citation omitted). 4 When reviewing a lower court’s decision for an abuse of discretion, this Court must analyze “whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason.” State v. Bodenbach, 165 Idaho 577, 591

2026This Court “review[s] a criminal sentence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Calley, 140 Idaho 663 , 665–66, 99 P.3d 616 , 618–19 (2004) (citation omitted). 4 When reviewing a lower court’s decision for an abuse of discretion, this Court must analyze “whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason.” State v. Bodenbach, 165 Idaho 577, 591

1998The application of the abuse of discretion standard requires that we determine: “(1) whether the trial court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the trial court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (3) whether the trial court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.” Id. (citing State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 600 , 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989)).

1998The application of the abuse of discretion standard requires that we determine: “(1) whether the trial court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the trial court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (3) whether the trial court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.” Id. (citing State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 600 , 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989)).

2024Dachlet v. State, 136 Idaho 752, 755 , 40 P.3d 110, 113 (2002).

2024Dachlet v. State, 136 Idaho 752, 755 , 40 P.3d 110, 113 (2002).

2016“We review the length of a sentence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Al-Kotrani, 141 Idaho 66, 70 , 106 P.3d 392, 396 (2005). ‘When a sentence is challenged as being excessively harsh, we independently review the record on appeal, having due regard for the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, and the protection of the public interest.” State v. Jeppesen, 138 Idaho 71, 76 , 57 P.3d 782, 787 (2002). “[W]hen doing so we consider the defendant’s entire sentence.” State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726 , 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007).

2016“We review the length of a sentence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Al-Kotrani, 141 Idaho 66, 70 , 106 P.3d 392, 396 (2005). ‘When a sentence is challenged as being excessively harsh, we independently review the record on appeal, having due regard for the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, and the protection of the public interest.” State v. Jeppesen, 138 Idaho 71, 76 , 57 P.3d 782, 787 (2002). “[W]hen doing so we consider the defendant’s entire sentence.” State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726 , 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007).

2023“When reviewing the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, this Court applies an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Jeske, 164 Idaho 862, 867 , 436 P.3d 683, 688 (2019) (citing State v. Anderson, 162 Idaho 610, 614 , 402 P.3d 1063, 1067 (2017)).

2023“When reviewing the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, this Court applies an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Jeske, 164 Idaho 862, 867 , 436 P.3d 683, 688 (2019) (citing State v. Anderson, 162 Idaho 610, 614 , 402 P.3d 1063, 1067 (2017)).

2025This Court applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a district court’s award of attorney fees, and the “party appealing an award of statutory attorney fees bears the burden of demonstrating a clear abuse of that discretion.” Berkshire Invs., LLC v. Taylor, 153 Idaho 73, 80 , 278 P.3d 943, 950 (2012).

2025This Court applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a district court’s award of attorney fees, and the “party appealing an award of statutory attorney fees bears the burden of demonstrating a clear abuse of that discretion.” Berkshire Invs., LLC v. Taylor, 153 Idaho 73, 80 , 278 P.3d 943, 950 (2012).

2009“The Court reviews trial court decisions admitting or excluding evidence ... under the abuse of discretion standard.” Morris v. Thomson, 130 Idaho 138, 144 , 937 P.2d 1212, 1218 (1997).

2009“The Court reviews trial court decisions admitting or excluding evidence ... under the abuse of discretion standard.” Morris v. Thomson, 130 Idaho 138, 144 , 937 P.2d 1212, 1218 (1997).

2023“Thus, this Court reviews a challenge to the district court’s evidentiary rulings, including whether to exclude expert testimony, under an abuse of discretion standard.” Id. (citing Perry, 134 Idaho at 50–51, 995 P.2d at 820–21).

2023“Thus, this Court reviews a challenge to the district court’s evidentiary rulings, including whether to exclude expert testimony, under an abuse of discretion standard.” Id. (citing Perry, 134 Idaho at 50–51, 995 P.2d at 820–21).

2022“This Court applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s determination of the admissibility of testimony offered in connection with a motion for summary judgment.” Id. at 15, 175 P.3d at 177 (citing McDaniel v. Inland Northwest Renal Care Group–Idaho, LLC, 144 Idaho 219, 221 , 159 P.3d 856, 858 (2007)).

2016“This Court applies an abuse of discretion standard when determining whether testimony offered in connection with a motion for summary judgment is admissible.” Id. at 15 , 175 P.3d at 177 .

2024“The Court employs an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to change the venue.” State v. Sheahan, 139 Idaho 267, 278 , 77 P.3d 956, 967 (2003) (quoting State v. Jones, 125 Idaho 477, 484 , 873 P.2d 122, 129 (1994)).

2024“The Court employs an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to change the venue.” State v. Sheahan, 139 Idaho 267, 278 , 77 P.3d 956, 967 (2003) (quoting State v. Jones, 125 Idaho 477, 484 , 873 P.2d 122, 129 (1994)).

2022“This Court applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s determination of the admissibility of testimony offered in connection with a motion for summary judgment.” Id. at 15, 175 P.3d at 177 (citing McDaniel v. Inland Northwest Renal Care Group–Idaho, LLC, 144 Idaho 219, 221 , 159 P.3d 856, 858 (2007)).

2014In applying the abuse of discretion standard, we ask three questions: “(1) whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to specific choices; and (3) whether the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.” Id. at 221-22 , 159 P.3d at 858-59 .

2023Idaho Rule of Evidence 403 governs the exclusion of relevant evidence and permits a court to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of “unfair 32 prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” A trial court’s ruling on cross-examination is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review, Clark v. Klein, 137 Idaho 154, 156 , 45 P.3d 810, 812 (2002), as is a district court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence pursuant to I.R.E. 403.

2023Idaho Rule of Evidence 403 governs the exclusion of relevant evidence and permits a court to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of “unfair 32 prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” A trial court’s ruling on cross-examination is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review, Clark v. Klein, 137 Idaho 154, 156 , 45 P.3d 810, 812 (2002), as is a district court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence pursuant to I.R.E. 403.

2024McIntosh, 160 Idaho at 8 , 368 P.3d at 628 (“When evaluating whether a sentence is excessive, this Court considers the entire length of the sentence under an abuse of discretion standard.” (citing State v. Stevens, 146 Idaho 139, 148 , 191 P.3d 217, 226 (2008)).

2024McIntosh, 160 Idaho at 8 , 368 P.3d at 628 (“When evaluating whether a sentence is excessive, this Court considers the entire length of the sentence under an abuse of discretion standard.” (citing State v. Stevens, 146 Idaho 139, 148 , 191 P.3d 217, 226 (2008)).

2026Fund 2016, LLC v. Wally Enters., Inc., 170 Idaho 649, 662 , 516 P.3d 73, 86 (2022) (citation omitted).

2026Fund 2016, LLC v. Wally Enters., Inc., 170 Idaho 649, 662 , 516 P.3d 73, 86 (2022) (citation omitted).

2023“Likewise, a trial court’s limitation on the scope of cross-examination is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co., 127 Idaho 565, 574 , 903 P.2d 730, 739 (1995).

2023“Likewise, a trial court’s limitation on the scope of cross-examination is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co., 127 Idaho 565, 574 , 903 P.2d 730, 739 (1995).

2020“An award of attorney fees and costs is within the discretion of the trial court and subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review.” Smith v. Mitton, 140 Idaho 893, 901 , 104 P.3d 367, 375 (2004).

2020“An award of attorney fees and costs is within the discretion of the trial court and subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review.” Smith v. Mitton, 140 Idaho 893, 901 , 104 P.3d 367, 375 (2004).

2009Id.

2007Id.

2025On page thirty-five of their opening brief, the Smiths state: [T]he district court’s utter “[f]ailure to consider the Pioneer factors in circumstances like those here, where counsel’s [alleged] ‘errors resulted from negligence and carelessness, not from deviousness or willfulness,’ constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Kettle Range Conservation Grp. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 8 F. App’x 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Bateman [v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d [1220,] 1225 [(2000)]. 13 While the Smiths cite to nonbinding authority that reference the abuse of discretion standard, a conclusory

2025On page thirty-five of their opening brief, the Smiths state: [T]he district court’s utter “[f]ailure to consider the Pioneer factors in circumstances like those here, where counsel’s [alleged] ‘errors resulted from negligence and carelessness, not from deviousness or willfulness,’ constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Kettle Range Conservation Grp. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 8 F. App’x 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Bateman [v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d [1220,] 1225 [(2000)]. 13 While the Smiths cite to nonbinding authority that reference the abuse of discretion standard, a conclusory

2023“When reviewing the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, this Court applies an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Jeske, 164 Idaho 862, 867 , 436 P.3d 683, 688 (2019) (citing State v. Anderson, 162 Idaho 610, 614 , 402 P.3d 1063, 1067 (2017)).

2023“When reviewing the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, this Court applies an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Jeske, 164 Idaho 862, 867 , 436 P.3d 683, 688 (2019) (citing State v. Anderson, 162 Idaho 610, 614 , 402 P.3d 1063, 1067 (2017)).

2020“When reviewing the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, this Court applies an abuse of discretion standard.” Herrett, 164 Idaho at 136, 426 P.3d at 487 (quoting Edmunds v. Kraner, 142 Idaho 867, 871 , 136 P.3d 338, 342 (2006)).

2020“When reviewing the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, this Court applies an abuse of discretion standard.” Herrett, 164 Idaho at 136, 426 P.3d at 487 (quoting Edmunds v. Kraner, 142 Idaho 867, 871 , 136 P.3d 338, 342 (2006)).

1996State v. Rhoades, 119 Idaho 594, 603 , 809 P.2d 455, 464 (1991); Atkinson, supra. Under the approach outlined above, our first task is to determine whether evidence of the alleged second transaction was admissible under I.R.E. 404(b).

1996State v. Rhoades, 119 Idaho 594, 603 , 809 P.2d 455, 464 (1991); Atkinson, supra. Under the approach outlined above, our first task is to determine whether evidence of the alleged second transaction was admissible under I.R.E. 404(b).