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 1994–2017 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. JOCKUMSENgreen2 sentences2012State v. Jockumsen, 148 Idaho 817, 822-23 , 229 P.3d 1179, 1184-85 (Ct. App. 2010). 2012State v. Jockumsen, 148 Idaho 817, 822-23 , 229 P.3d 1179, 1184-85 (Ct. App. 2010). | 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. McFarland
green
2 sentences2012McFarland, 125 Idaho at 879 , 876 P.2d at 161 . 2012McFarland, 125 Idaho at 879 , 876 P.2d at 161 . | 3 | 2007–2012 |
State v. Durham
green
2 sentences2017Durham, 146 Idaho at 366 , 195 P.3d at 725 . 2017Durham, 146 Idaho at 366 , 195 P.3d at 725 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Puente-Gomez
green
2 sentences1994Pursuant to the above standards, we will uphold the district court’s refusal to order a psychological evaluation of McFarland if (1) the record supports a finding that there was no reason to believe his mental condition would be a “significant factor at sentencing,” see Puente-Gomez, 121 Idaho at 706 , 827 P.2d at 716 ; or if (2) the information already before the court adequately meets the requirements of I.C. § 19-2522(3). 1994Pursuant to the above standards, we will uphold the district court’s refusal to order a psychological evaluation of McFarland if (1) the record supports a finding that there was no reason to believe his mental condition would be a “significant factor at sentencing,” see Puente-Gomez, 121 Idaho at 706 , 827 P.2d at 716 ; or if (2) the information already before the court adequately meets the requirements of I.C. § 19-2522(3). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.