multi-tiered inquiry in Idaho

2026State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261 , 270, 429 P.3d 149, 158 (2018). 1 Johnson also pled guilty to three misdemeanors for resisting or obstructing, possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia, which offenses were included in the order withholding judgment.

2026State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261 , 270, 429 P.3d 149, 158 (2018).

2017When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion, acted within the boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it, and reached its decision by an exercise of reason. 4 State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 600 , 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989).

2017When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion, acted within the boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it, and reached its decision by an exercise of reason. 4 State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 600 , 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989).

2023In reviewing exercises of discretion, this Court applies a multi-tiered inquiry: “[w]hether 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).

2020In reviewing discretionary rulings, we engage in a multi-tiered inquiry to determine 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).

2017When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; acted within the boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and reached its decision by an exercise of reason. 2 Sun Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 94 , 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991). 1 Walton asserts she did present this issue to the district court.

2017When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; acted within the boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and reached its decision by an exercise of reason. 2 Sun Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 94 , 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991). 1 Walton asserts she did present this issue to the district court.

1987In the recent case of Associates Northwest, Inc. v. Beets, 112 Idaho 603, 733 P.2d 824 (Ct.App.1987) — decided after briefing and oral argument in this appeal — we outlined the appellate court’s multi-tiered inquiry when reviewing the exercise of trial court discretion.

1987In the recent case of Associates Northwest, Inc. v. Beets, 112 Idaho 603, 733 P.2d 824 (Ct.App.1987) — decided after briefing and oral argument in this appeal — we outlined the appellate court’s multi-tiered inquiry when reviewing the exercise of trial court discretion.

2014Duvalt v. Sonnen, 137 Idaho 548, 552 , 50 P.3d 1043, 1047 (Ct. App. 2002).

2014Duvalt v. Sonnen, 137 Idaho 548, 552 , 50 P.3d 1043, 1047 (Ct. App. 2002).

2019See State v. Kralovec, 161 Idaho 569 , 575 n.2, 388 P.3d 583 , 589 n.2 (2017) (noting that the failure to address the multi-tiered inquiry under the abuse of discretion standard is fatally deficient).

2019See State v. Kralovec, 161 Idaho 569 , 575 n.2, 388 P.3d 583 , 589 n.2 (2017) (noting that the failure to address the multi-tiered inquiry under the abuse of discretion standard is fatally deficient).

2020Like a motion to suppress evidence, when a decision on a motion to dismiss is challenged, “the Court accepts the trial court’s findings of fact that are supported by substantial evidence, but freely reviews the application of constitutional principles to the facts as found.” State v. Bodenbach, 165 Idaho 577, 589, 448 P.3d 1005, 1017 (2019) (quoting State v. Moore, 164 Idaho 379, 381, 430 P.3d 1278, 1280 (2018)).

2020Like a motion to suppress evidence, when a decision on a motion to dismiss is challenged, “the Court accepts the trial court’s findings of fact that are supported by substantial evidence, but freely reviews the application of constitutional principles to the facts as found.” State v. Bodenbach, 165 Idaho 577, 589 , 448 P.3d 1005, 1017 (2019) (quoting State v. Moore, 164 Idaho 379 , 381, 430 P.3d 1278, 1280 (2018)).

2020Like a motion to suppress evidence, when a decision on a motion to dismiss is challenged, “the Court accepts the trial court’s findings of fact that are supported by substantial evidence, but freely reviews the application of constitutional principles to the facts as found.” State v. Bodenbach, 165 Idaho 577, 589 , 448 P.3d 1005, 1017 (2019) (quoting State v. Moore, 164 Idaho 379 , 381, 430 P.3d 1278, 1280 (2018)).

2020Like a motion to suppress evidence, when a decision on a motion to dismiss is challenged, “the Court accepts the trial court’s findings of fact that are supported by substantial evidence, but freely reviews the application of constitutional principles to the facts as found.” State v. Bodenbach, 165 Idaho 577, 589 , 448 P.3d 1005, 1017 (2019) (quoting State v. Moore, 164 Idaho 379 , 381, 430 P.3d 1278, 1280 (2018)).

2012See Lee v. Nickerson, 146 Idaho 5, 9 , 189 P.3d 467, 471 (2008) (citing State Ins.

2012See Lee v. Nickerson, 146 Idaho 5, 9 , 189 P.3d 467, 471 (2008) (citing State Ins.

2004State v. Ransom, 124 Idaho 703, 706 , 864 P.2d 149, 152 (1993).

2004State v. Ransom, 124 Idaho 703, 706 , 864 P.2d 149, 152 (1993).

2002State v. Grube, 126 Idaho 377, 381 , 883 P.2d 1069, 1073 (1994); State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 600 , 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989); Dragoman, 130 Idaho at 543 , 944 P.2d at 140 .

2002State v. Grube, 126 Idaho 377, 381 , 883 P.2d 1069, 1073 (1994); State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 600 , 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989); Dragoman, 130 Idaho at 543 , 944 P.2d at 140 .

2020State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261 , 270, 429 P.3d 149, 158 (2018). 1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970) (“An individual accused of crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime.”). 3 Reaching a reasoned decision on a motion in limine may require the trial court to make factual determinations.

2019When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards 1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 2 applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason.

2026State v. Hood, 102 Idaho 711, 712 , 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06 , 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). 2 When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason.

2026State v. Hood, 102 Idaho 711, 712 , 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06 , 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). 2 When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason.

2026State v. Hood, 102 Idaho 711, 712 , 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06 , 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). 2 When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason.

2026State v. Hood, 102 Idaho 711, 712 , 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06 , 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). 2 When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason.

2025State v. Lippert, 152 Idaho 884, 887 , 276 P.3d 756, 759 (Ct. App. 2012). 2 When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason.

2025State v. Lippert, 152 Idaho 884, 887 , 276 P.3d 756, 759 (Ct. App. 2012). 2 When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason.

2025State v. Gilpin, 132 Idaho 643, 646 , 977 P.2d 905, 908 (Ct. App. 1999). 2 When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason.

2025State v. Gilpin, 132 Idaho 643, 646 , 977 P.2d 905, 908 (Ct. App. 1999). 2 When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason.

2025State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261 , 270, 429 P.3d 149, 158 (2018). 3 The defense of necessity is based on the premise that a person who is “compelled to commit an illegal act in order to prevent a greater harm should not be punished for that act.” State v. Hastings, 118 Idaho 854, 855 , 801 P.2d 563, 564 (1990).

2025State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261 , 270, 429 P.3d 149, 158 (2018). 3 The defense of necessity is based on the premise that a person who is “compelled to commit an illegal act in order to prevent a greater harm should not be punished for that act.” State v. Hastings, 118 Idaho 854, 855 , 801 P.2d 563, 564 (1990).

2023Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 165 Idaho 33, 44 , 437 P.3d 33, 44 (2019).

2023Idaho Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Doe, 165 Idaho 33, 44 , 437 P.3d 33, 44 (2019).

2023Because this Court has held “the determination of the value of community property is within the discretion of the trial court,” the magistrate court’s determination “will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by substantial competent evidence.” Chandler v. Chandler, 136 Idaho 246, 249 , 32 P.3d 140, 143 (2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

2023Because this Court has held “the determination of the value of community property is within the discretion of the trial court,” the magistrate court’s determination “will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by substantial competent evidence.” Chandler v. Chandler, 136 Idaho 246, 249 , 32 P.3d 140, 143 (2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

2023Rome v. State, 164 Idaho 407 , 413, 431 P.3d 242, 248 (2018).

2019State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261 , 270, 429 P.3d 149, 158 (2018). 2 State v. Scroggins, 110 Idaho 380, 384 , 716 P.2d 1152, 1156 (1985); Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir. 1928). 3 State v. Drapeau, 97 Idaho 685, 691 , 551 P.2d 972, 978 (1976). 3 III.

2019State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261 , 270, 429 P.3d 149, 158 (2018). 2 State v. Scroggins, 110 Idaho 380, 384 , 716 P.2d 1152, 1156 (1985); Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir. 1928). 3 State v. Drapeau, 97 Idaho 685, 691 , 551 P.2d 972, 978 (1976). 3 III.

2019State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261 , 270, 429 P.3d 149, 158 (2018). 2 State v. Scroggins, 110 Idaho 380, 384 , 716 P.2d 1152, 1156 (1985); Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir. 1928). 3 State v. Drapeau, 97 Idaho 685, 691 , 551 P.2d 972, 978 (1976). 3 III.

2019State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261 , 270, 429 P.3d 149, 158 (2018). 2 State v. Scroggins, 110 Idaho 380, 384 , 716 P.2d 1152, 1156 (1985); Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir. 1928). 3 State v. Drapeau, 97 Idaho 685, 691 , 551 P.2d 972, 978 (1976). 3 III.

2019When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices defined in subsection (4) of this section, or more, as shown by analysis of his blood, urine, or breath, to drive or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle within this state, whether upon a highway, street or bridge, or upon public or private

2019When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices defined in subsection (4) of this section, or more, as shown by analysis of his blood, urine, or breath, to drive or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle within this state, whether upon a highway, street or bridge, or upon public or private

2019State v. Cunningham I, 161 Idaho 698, 700 , 390 P.3d 424, 426 (2017). 2 When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court 2 The Supreme Court has issued two opinions in the case of State v. Cunningham.

2019State v. Cunningham I, 161 Idaho 698, 700 , 390 P.3d 424, 426 (2017). 2 When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court 2 The Supreme Court has issued two opinions in the case of State v. Cunningham.