19 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2025 5 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. Perrygreen2 sentences2024In addition, “Where a defendant demonstrates that prosecutorial misconduct has occurred, and such misconduct was followed by a contemporaneous objection by defense counsel, such error shall be reviewed for harmless error.” State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 227 , 245 P.3d 961, 979 (2008). 2024In addition, “Where a defendant demonstrates that prosecutorial misconduct has occurred, and such misconduct was followed by a contemporaneous objection by defense counsel, such error shall be reviewed for harmless error.” State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 227 , 245 P.3d 961, 979 (2008). | 6 | 13 |
Puckett v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2011The Idaho Supreme Court recently explained the purpose of the contemporaneous objection requirement and why appellate courts generally do not consider alleged errors not preserved through an objection at trial, as follows: “This limitation on appellate-court authority serves to induce the timely raising of claims and objections, which gives the [trial] court the opportunity to consider and resolve them.” Puckett v. U.S., 556 U.S. 129, 134 , 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1428 , 173 L.Ed.2d 266 [274] (2009). 2011The Idaho Supreme Court recently explained the purpose of the contemporaneous objection requirement and why appellate courts generally do not consider alleged errors not preserved through an objection at trial, as follows: “This limitation on appellate-court authority serves to induce the timely raising of claims and objections, which gives the [trial] court the opportunity to consider and resolve them.” Puckett v. U.S., 556 U.S. 129, 134 , 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1428 , 173 L.Ed.2d 266 [274] (2009). | 2 | 3 |
Wainwright v. Sykesgreen2 sentences2025Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 89 (1977). 2025Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 89 (1977). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2013State v. Adams, 147 Idaho 857, 861 , 216 P.3d 146, 150 (Ct.App.2009). 2010The contemporaneous objection requirement exists for a number of reasons including preventing “a defendant from ‘sandbagging’ by remaining silent about a recognized error and belatedly raising the error only if the case does not conclude in his favor.” Id. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Atkinsongreen1 sentence2020United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 159 (1936). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Gerald Vontsteen, A/K/A Skip Vontsteen
green
2 sentences2012Vontsteen, 950 F.2d at 1090 . 2012Vontsteen, 950 F.2d at 1090 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences2011“Where a defendant demonstrates that prosecutorial misconduct has occurred, and such misconduct was followed by a contemporaneous objection by defense counsel, such error shall be reviewed for harmless error in accordance with Chapman [v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) ].” Perry, 150 Idaho at 227 , 245 P.3d at 979 . 2011“Where a defendant demonstrates that prosecutorial misconduct has occurred, and such misconduct was followed by a contemporaneous objection by defense counsel, such error shall be reviewed for harmless error in accordance with Chapman [v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) ].” Perry, 150 Idaho at 227 , 245 P.3d at 979 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Sanchez
green
2 sentences2011As we stated in Sanchez, 142 Idaho at 318 , 127 P.3d at 221 : Our inquiry is, thus, two-tiered. 2011As we stated in Sanchez, 142 Idaho at 318 , 127 P.3d at 221 : Our inquiry is, thus, two-tiered. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.