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.
23 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Thus, we held that Miller committed multiple offenses and a unanimity instruction was required. 3 Id. 2013Thus, we held that Miller committed multiple offenses and a unanimity instruction was required. 3 Id. | 7 | 12 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2010In State v. Johnson, 145 Idaho 970, 977-78 , 188 P.3d 912, 919-20 (2008), when presented with an argument that the absence of a unanimity instruction of the type sought by Molen was a fundamental error, the Supreme Court did not determine whether such an error would constitute fundamental error because it concluded that the instruction was not required in that case. 2010In State v. Johnson, 145 Idaho 970, 977-78 , 188 P.3d 912, 919-20 (2008), when presented with an argument that the absence of a unanimity instruction of the type sought by Molen was a fundamental error, the Supreme Court did not determine whether such an error would constitute fundamental error because it concluded that the instruction was not required in that case. | 5 | 5 |
State v. Seversongreen2 sentences2014But a unanimity instruction is required “when the defendant commits several acts, each of which would independently support a conviction for the crime charged.” Severson, 147 Idaho at 711 , 215 P.3d at 431 . 2014But a unanimity instruction is required “when the defendant commits several acts, each of which would independently support a conviction for the crime charged.” Severson, 147 Idaho at 711 , 215 P.3d at 431 . | 2 | 7 |
State v. Gaingreen2 sentences2014See Gain, 140 Idaho at 173 , 90 P.3d at 923 (holding that the State’s election of the act upon which it would rely to support the charge in each of the three counts of lewd conduct against Gain rendered the giving of a unanimity instruction unnecessary). 2014See Gain, 140 Idaho at 173 , 90 P.3d at 923 (holding that the State’s election of the act upon which it would rely to support the charge in each of the three counts of lewd conduct against Gain rendered the giving of a unanimity instruction unnecessary). | 2 | 4 |
Downing v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Severson, 147 Idaho at 711-12 , 215 P.3d at 431-32 (holding that the jury could have found that Severson had murdered his wife by suffocating her, overdosing her, or both); Nunez, 133 Idaho at 19 , 981 P.2d at 744 (holding that a district court did not err in deciding not to instruct the jury that it must unanimously agree on the underlying act giving rise to a misuse of public monies charge); Downing v. State, 136 Idaho 367, 372-73 , 33 P.3d 841, 846-47 (Ct.App.2001) (concluding that a defendant charged with lewd conduct involving manual-genital and/or genital-genital contact was not enti 2014See Severson, 147 Idaho at 711-12 , 215 P.3d at 431-32 (holding that the jury could have found that Severson had murdered his wife by suffocating her, overdosing her, or both); Nunez, 133 Idaho at 19 , 981 P.2d at 744 (holding that a district court did not err in deciding not to instruct the jury that it must unanimously agree on the underlying act giving rise to a misuse of public monies charge); Downing v. State, 136 Idaho 367, 372-73 , 33 P.3d 841, 846-47 (Ct.App.2001) (concluding that a defendant charged with lewd conduct involving manual-genital and/or genital-genital contact was not enti | 2 | 2 |
Schad v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2016Even if a second mens rea was at issue, this does not require a specific unanimity instruction where the jury’s options do “not fall beyond the constitutional bounds of fundamental fairness and rationality.” Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 626 , 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2494 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555, 562 (1991). 2016Even if a second mens rea was at issue, this does not require a specific unanimity instruction where the jury’s options do “not fall beyond the constitutional bounds of fundamental fairness and rationality.” Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 626 , 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2494 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555, 562 (1991). | 1 | 6 |
State v. Montoyagreen2 sentences2017See State v. Montoya, 140 Idaho 160, 168 , 90 P.3d 910, 918 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding absence of unanimity instruction not prejudicial where evidence presented was sufficient to support finding of guilt as to any of the acts); Miller, 135 Idaho at 268 , 16 P.3d at 944 (same). 2017See State v. Montoya, 140 Idaho 160, 168 , 90 P.3d 910, 918 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding absence of unanimity instruction not prejudicial where evidence presented was sufficient to support finding of guilt as to any of the acts); Miller, 135 Idaho at 268 , 16 P.3d at 944 (same). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Nunezgreen2 sentences2014See Severson, 147 Idaho at 711-12 , 215 P.3d at 431-32 (holding that the jury could have found that Severson had murdered his wife by suffocating her, overdosing her, or both); Nunez, 133 Idaho at 19 , 981 P.2d at 744 (holding that a district court did not err in deciding not to instruct the jury that it must unanimously agree on the underlying act giving rise to a misuse of public monies charge); Downing v. State, 136 Idaho 367, 372-73 , 33 P.3d 841, 846-47 (Ct.App.2001) (concluding that a defendant charged with lewd conduct involving manual-genital and/or genital-genital contact was not enti 2014See Severson, 147 Idaho at 711-12 , 215 P.3d at 431-32 (holding that the jury could have found that Severson had murdered his wife by suffocating her, overdosing her, or both); Nunez, 133 Idaho at 19 , 981 P.2d at 744 (holding that a district court did not err in deciding not to instruct the jury that it must unanimously agree on the underlying act giving rise to a misuse of public monies charge); Downing v. State, 136 Idaho 367, 372-73 , 33 P.3d 841, 846-47 (Ct.App.2001) (concluding that a defendant charged with lewd conduct involving manual-genital and/or genital-genital contact was not enti | 1 | 2 |
State v. Ana Giselle Herreman-Garciagreen2 sentences2019“A trial court is required to give a unanimity instruction where there is evidence of more criminal acts than have 9 been charged, regardless of whether the instruction has been requested by the defendant.” State v. Herreman-Garcia, 160 Idaho 642, 648 , 377 P.3d 1105, 1111 (Ct. App. 2016). 2019“A trial court is required to give a unanimity instruction where there is evidence of more criminal acts than have 9 been charged, regardless of whether the instruction has been requested by the defendant.” State v. Herreman-Garcia, 160 Idaho 642, 648 , 377 P.3d 1105, 1111 (Ct. App. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tami Marie Southwickgreen2 sentences2017See Southwick, 158 Idaho 173 , 345 P.3d 232 . 2017See Southwick, 158 Idaho 173 , 345 P.3d 232 . | 1 | 1 |
Roman v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See id. | 1 | 1 |
McKoy v. North Carolinagreen2 sentences2009To require unanimous factual findings would ignore the fact that “different jurors may be persuaded by different pieces of evidence, even [though] they agree upon the bottom line.” Schad, 501 U.S. at 631-32 , 111 S.Ct. at 2497 , 115 L.Ed.2d at 565 (quoting McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 449 , 110 S.Ct. 1227, 1236 , 108 L.Ed.2d 369, 384-85 (1990) (Blackmun, J., concurring)). 2009To require unanimous factual findings would ignore the fact that “different jurors may be persuaded by different pieces of evidence, even [though] they agree upon the bottom line.” Schad, 501 U.S. at 631-32 , 111 S.Ct. at 2497 , 115 L.Ed.2d at 565 (quoting McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 449 , 110 S.Ct. 1227, 1236 , 108 L.Ed.2d 369, 384-85 (1990) (Blackmun, J., concurring)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Roger Eagle Elkgreen2 sentences2008Likewise, several other jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to provide a specific unanimity instruction when a defendant can be convicted of an offense based on actions as a principal or as an aider and abettor. 7 Garcia, 400 F.3d at 819-20 ; United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 545-46 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Eagle Elk, 820 F.2d 959, 961 (8th Cir.1987) (“Even if the jury was divided on whether [the defendant] committed the principal crime or aided or abetted in its commission, there can be no question that the illegal act was murder.”); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 , 1 2008Likewise, several other jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to provide a specific unanimity instruction when a defendant can be convicted of an offense based on actions as a principal or as an aider and abettor. 7 Garcia, 400 F.3d at 819-20 ; United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 545-46 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Eagle Elk, 820 F.2d 959, 961 (8th Cir.1987) (“Even if the jury was divided on whether [the defendant] committed the principal crime or aided or abetted in its commission, there can be no question that the illegal act was murder.”); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 , 1 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2008Likewise, several other jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to provide a specific unanimity instruction when a defendant can be convicted of an offense based on actions as a principal or as an aider and abettor. 7 Garcia, 400 F.3d at 819-20 ; United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 545-46 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Eagle Elk, 820 F.2d 959, 961 (8th Cir.1987) (“Even if the jury was divided on whether [the defendant] committed the principal crime or aided or abetted in its commission, there can be no question that the illegal act was murder.”); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 , 1 2008Likewise, several other jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to provide a specific unanimity instruction when a defendant can be convicted of an offense based on actions as a principal or as an aider and abettor. 7 Garcia, 400 F.3d at 819-20 ; United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 545-46 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Eagle Elk, 820 F.2d 959, 961 (8th Cir.1987) (“Even if the jury was divided on whether [the defendant] committed the principal crime or aided or abetted in its commission, there can be no question that the illegal act was murder.”); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 , 1 | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Willie Hortongreen2 sentences2008Likewise, several other jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to provide a specific unanimity instruction when a defendant can be convicted of an offense based on actions as a principal or as an aider and abettor. 7 Garcia, 400 F.3d at 819-20 ; United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 545-46 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Eagle Elk, 820 F.2d 959, 961 (8th Cir.1987) (“Even if the jury was divided on whether [the defendant] committed the principal crime or aided or abetted in its commission, there can be no question that the illegal act was murder.”); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 , 1 2008Likewise, several other jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to provide a specific unanimity instruction when a defendant can be convicted of an offense based on actions as a principal or as an aider and abettor. 7 Garcia, 400 F.3d at 819-20 ; United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 545-46 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Eagle Elk, 820 F.2d 959, 961 (8th Cir.1987) (“Even if the jury was divided on whether [the defendant] committed the principal crime or aided or abetted in its commission, there can be no question that the illegal act was murder.”); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 , 1 | 1 | 1 |
Holland v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Likewise, several other jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to provide a specific unanimity instruction when a defendant can be convicted of an offense based on actions as a principal or as an aider and abettor. 7 Garcia, 400 F.3d at 819-20 ; United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 545-46 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Eagle Elk, 820 F.2d 959, 961 (8th Cir.1987) (“Even if the jury was divided on whether [the defendant] committed the principal crime or aided or abetted in its commission, there can be no question that the illegal act was murder.”); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 , 1 2008Likewise, several other jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to provide a specific unanimity instruction when a defendant can be convicted of an offense based on actions as a principal or as an aider and abettor. 7 Garcia, 400 F.3d at 819-20 ; United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 545-46 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Eagle Elk, 820 F.2d 959, 961 (8th Cir.1987) (“Even if the jury was divided on whether [the defendant] committed the principal crime or aided or abetted in its commission, there can be no question that the illegal act was murder.”); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 , 1 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Maurygreen2 sentences2008Likewise, several other jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to provide a specific unanimity instruction when a defendant can be convicted of an offense based on actions as a principal or as an aider and abettor. 7 Garcia, 400 F.3d at 819-20 ; United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 545-46 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Eagle Elk, 820 F.2d 959, 961 (8th Cir.1987) (“Even if the jury was divided on whether [the defendant] committed the principal crime or aided or abetted in its commission, there can be no question that the illegal act was murder.”); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 , 1 2008Likewise, several other jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to provide a specific unanimity instruction when a defendant can be convicted of an offense based on actions as a principal or as an aider and abettor. 7 Garcia, 400 F.3d at 819-20 ; United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 545-46 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Eagle Elk, 820 F.2d 959, 961 (8th Cir.1987) (“Even if the jury was divided on whether [the defendant] committed the principal crime or aided or abetted in its commission, there can be no question that the illegal act was murder.”); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 , 1 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Allenyellow2 sentences2008Likewise, several other jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to provide a specific unanimity instruction when a defendant can be convicted of an offense based on actions as a principal or as an aider and abettor. 7 Garcia, 400 F.3d at 819-20 ; United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 545-46 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Eagle Elk, 820 F.2d 959, 961 (8th Cir.1987) (“Even if the jury was divided on whether [the defendant] committed the principal crime or aided or abetted in its commission, there can be no question that the illegal act was murder.”); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 , 1 2008Likewise, several other jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to provide a specific unanimity instruction when a defendant can be convicted of an offense based on actions as a principal or as an aider and abettor. 7 Garcia, 400 F.3d at 819-20 ; United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 545-46 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Eagle Elk, 820 F.2d 959, 961 (8th Cir.1987) (“Even if the jury was divided on whether [the defendant] committed the principal crime or aided or abetted in its commission, there can be no question that the illegal act was murder.”); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 , 1 | 1 | 1 |
Simms v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2008Likewise, several other jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to provide a specific unanimity instruction when a defendant can be convicted of an offense based on actions as a principal or as an aider and abettor. 7 Garcia, 400 F.3d at 819-20 ; United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 545-46 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Eagle Elk, 820 F.2d 959, 961 (8th Cir.1987) (“Even if the jury was divided on whether [the defendant] committed the principal crime or aided or abetted in its commission, there can be no question that the illegal act was murder.”); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 , 1 2008Likewise, several other jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to provide a specific unanimity instruction when a defendant can be convicted of an offense based on actions as a principal or as an aider and abettor. 7 Garcia, 400 F.3d at 819-20 ; United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 545-46 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Eagle Elk, 820 F.2d 959, 961 (8th Cir.1987) (“Even if the jury was divided on whether [the defendant] committed the principal crime or aided or abetted in its commission, there can be no question that the illegal act was murder.”); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 , 1 | 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. Grinolds
green
2 sentences2013In State v. Grinolds, 121 Idaho 673 , 827 P.2d 686 (1992), the defendant asserted that his protection against double jeopardy was violated by reason of being charged with two acts of rape. 2013In State v. Grinolds, 121 Idaho 673 , 827 P.2d 686 (1992), the defendant asserted that his protection against double jeopardy was violated by reason of being charged with two acts of rape. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
United States v. Jin Han Kim
green
2 sentences2004Id. 2001Kim, 196 F.3d at 1083 . | 2 | 2001–2004 |
State v. Gaines
green
2 sentences2008Likewise, several other jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to provide a specific unanimity instruction when a defendant can be convicted of an offense based on actions as a principal or as an aider and abettor. 7 Garcia, 400 F.3d at 819-20 ; United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 545-46 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Eagle Elk, 820 F.2d 959, 961 (8th Cir.1987) (“Even if the jury was divided on whether [the defendant] committed the principal crime or aided or abetted in its commission, there can be no question that the illegal act was murder.”); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 , 1 2008Likewise, several other jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to provide a specific unanimity instruction when a defendant can be convicted of an offense based on actions as a principal or as an aider and abettor. 7 Garcia, 400 F.3d at 819-20 ; United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 545-46 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Eagle Elk, 820 F.2d 959, 961 (8th Cir.1987) (“Even if the jury was divided on whether [the defendant] committed the principal crime or aided or abetted in its commission, there can be no question that the illegal act was murder.”); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 , 1 | 1 | 2008–2008 |
United States v. Odilon Garcia
green
2 sentences2008Likewise, several other jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to provide a specific unanimity instruction when a defendant can be convicted of an offense based on actions as a principal or as an aider and abettor. 7 Garcia, 400 F.3d at 819-20 ; United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 545-46 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Eagle Elk, 820 F.2d 959, 961 (8th Cir.1987) (“Even if the jury was divided on whether [the defendant] committed the principal crime or aided or abetted in its commission, there can be no question that the illegal act was murder.”); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 , 1 2008Likewise, several other jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to provide a specific unanimity instruction when a defendant can be convicted of an offense based on actions as a principal or as an aider and abettor. 7 Garcia, 400 F.3d at 819-20 ; United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 545-46 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Eagle Elk, 820 F.2d 959, 961 (8th Cir.1987) (“Even if the jury was divided on whether [the defendant] committed the principal crime or aided or abetted in its commission, there can be no question that the illegal act was murder.”); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 , 1 | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Ward v. Weekes
green
2 sentences1978The court believed that its holding "best assures attainment of the purpose of less-than-unanimous verdicts, namely, overcoming minor disagreements that resulted in `hung' juries under the unanimity requirement." Id.; cf. Ward v. Weekes, 107 N.J. 1978The court believed that its holding “best assures attainment of the purpose of less-than-unanimous verdicts, namely, overcoming minor disagreements that resulted in ‘hung’ juries under the unanimity requirement.” Id.; cf. Ward v. Weekes, 107 N.J.Super. 351 , 258 A.2d 379 (App.Div.1969) (contrary rule frustrates objective of preventing mistrials that cause economic loss to public, litigants, attorneys, and witnesses and contribute to court congestion and unfairness resulting from prolonged delay). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.