Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Prattgreen2 sentences2009Similarly, in Pratt, the Court stated that the victim‟s death had been “part of the stream of events” that began when the defendant and his brother entered a residence for the purpose of stealing money, continued through a chase, and ended the following day when they finally surrendered to the police after killing one of the officers. 125 Idaho at 558 , 873 P.2d at 812 . 14 Furthermore, the Idaho Court of Appeals has used language that allows for the liability of anyone involved in the initial felony if that felony itself leads to death: Any murder committed during the perpetration of certain 2009Similarly, in Pratt, the Court stated that the victim‟s death had been “part of the stream of events” that began when the defendant and his brother entered a residence for the purpose of stealing money, continued through a chase, and ended the following day when they finally surrendered to the police after killing one of the officers. 125 Idaho at 558 , 873 P.2d at 812 . 14 Furthermore, the Idaho Court of Appeals has used language that allows for the liability of anyone involved in the initial felony if that felony itself leads to death: Any murder committed during the perpetration of certain | 2 | 3 |
State v. Romero-Garciagreen2 sentences2009I find that the State presented sufficient evidence for Pina‟s conviction of first degree felony murder pursuant to I.C. § 18-4003(d). 12 “The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution precludes conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which a defendant is charged.” State v. Romero-Garcia, 139 Idaho 199, 204 , 75 P.3d 1209, 1214 (Ct. App. 2003). 2009I find that the State presented sufficient evidence for Pina‟s conviction of first degree felony murder pursuant to I.C. § 18-4003(d). 12 “The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution precludes conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which a defendant is charged.” State v. Romero-Garcia, 139 Idaho 199, 204 , 75 P.3d 1209, 1214 (Ct. App. 2003). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ebygreen2 sentences2010Any participant in the predicate felony can be held accountable for first degree murder for any death that occurred during the commission of the felony, regardless of whether that individual directly participated in the killing or expected or intended a death to occur. 1 State v. Eby, 136 Idaho 534, 539 , 37 P.3d 625, 630 (Ct.App.2001). 2010Any participant in the predicate felony can be held accountable for first degree murder for any death that occurred during the commission of the felony, regardless of whether that individual directly participated in the killing or expected or intended a death to occur. 1 State v. Eby, 136 Idaho 534, 539 , 37 P.3d 625, 630 (Ct.App.2001). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Windsorgreen2 sentences1989This conclusion is supported by State v. Paradis, 106 Idaho 117, 125 , 676 P.2d 31, 39 (1984) and State v. Windsor, 110 Idaho 410, 419 , 716 P.2d 1182, 1191 (1985). 1989This conclusion is supported by State v. Paradis, 106 Idaho 117, 125 , 676 P.2d 31, 39 (1984) and State v. Windsor, 110 Idaho 410, 419 , 716 P.2d 1182, 1191 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Paradisgreen2 sentences1989This conclusion is supported by State v. Paradis, 106 Idaho 117, 125 , 676 P.2d 31, 39 (1984) and State v. Windsor, 110 Idaho 410, 419 , 716 P.2d 1182, 1191 (1985). 1989This conclusion is supported by State v. Paradis, 106 Idaho 117, 125 , 676 P.2d 31, 39 (1984) and State v. Windsor, 110 Idaho 410, 419 , 716 P.2d 1182, 1191 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lankford
green
2 sentences2005See State v. Pratt (James), 125 Idaho 546 , 873 P.2d 800 (1993); State v. Lankford, 116 Idaho 860 , 781 P.2d 197 (1989). 2005See State v. Pratt (James), 125 Idaho 546 , 873 P.2d 800 (1993); State v. Lankford, 116 Idaho 860 , 781 P.2d 197 (1989). | 2 | 1993–2005 |
State v. Wood
green
2 sentences2018Wood , 132 Idaho at 103 , 967 P.2d at 717 . 2018Wood , 132 Idaho at 103 , 967 P.2d at 717 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.