felony-murder rule (Idaho) · Go Syfert
← Idaho issues

felony-murder rule in Idaho

13 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2024 1 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.

Followed or applied (28)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Cheathamgreen
idaho · 2000 · cited in 4 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2016–2017
2 sentences

2017State v. Cheatham, 134 Idaho 565, 571 , 6 P.3d 815, 821 (2000) (“The general rationale behind the felony murder rule is that the intent to commit the felony substitutes for the malice requirement.

2017State v. Cheatham, 134 Idaho 565, 571 , 6 P.3d 815, 821 (2000) (“The general rationale behind the felony murder rule is that the intent to commit the felony substitutes for the malice requirement.

44
State v. Fetterlygreen
idaho · 1985 · cited in 5 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1985–2010
2 sentences

2010In State v. Fetterly, 109 Idaho 766 , 710 P.2d 1202 (1985), this Court applied the felony murder rule to a death that occurred during the perpetration of a burglary.

2010In State v. Fetterly, 109 Idaho 766 , 710 P.2d 1202 (1985), this Court applied the felony murder rule to a death that occurred during the perpetration of a burglary.

35
People v. Lowerygreen
ill · 1997 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010See State v. Oimen, 184 Wis.2d 423 , 516 N.W.2d 399, 404 (1994) (upholding a conviction under the felony-murder rule when the intended victim of the underlying felony killed a co-felon); People v. Lowery, 178 Ill.2d 462 , 227 Ill.Dec. 491 , 687 N.E.2d 973, 976 (1997) (applying a broad interpretation of the felony murder rule to uphold a conviction where the intended victim of the armed robbery resisted and accidentally killed an innocent bystander).

2010See State v. Oimen, 184 Wis.2d 423 , 516 N.W.2d 399, 404 (1994) (upholding a conviction under the felony-murder rule when the intended victim of the underlying felony killed a co-felon); People v. Lowery, 178 Ill.2d 462 , 227 Ill.Dec. 491 , 687 N.E.2d 973, 976 (1997) (applying a broad interpretation of the felony murder rule to uphold a conviction where the intended victim of the armed robbery resisted and accidentally killed an innocent bystander).

22
Sheriff, Clark County v. Hicksgreen
nev · 1973 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del.1980); State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (1959); Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 , 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (1965); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528 , 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766, 768 (1973); State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1977); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

2010See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del.1980); State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (1959); Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 , 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (1965); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528 , 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766, 768 (1973); State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1977); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

22
Sheckles v. Stategreen
indctapp · 1997 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 173 Ariz. 552 , 845 P.2d 478, 482 (Ariz.Ct.App.1992); Mikenas v. State, 367 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla.1978); People v. Dekens, 182 Ill.2d 247 , 230 Ill.Dec. 984 , 695 N.E.2d 474, 475 (1998); Sheckles v. State, 684 N.E.2d 201, 205 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); State v. Baker, 607 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Mo.1980); People v. Hernandez, 82 N.Y.2d 309 , 604 N.Y.S.2d 524 , 624 N.E.2d 661, 665 (1993). [5] The felony murder doctrine was "continuously modified and restricted in England, the country of its birth, until its ultimate rejection by Parliament in 1957." Aaron, 299 N.W.2d at 310-11 . [6] T

2009See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 845 P.2d 478, 482 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992); Mikenas v. State, 367 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1978); People v. Dekens, 695 N.E.2d 474, 475 (Ill. 1998); Sheckles v. State, 684 N.E.2d 201, 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997); State v. Baker, 607 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Mo. 1980); People v. Hernandez, 624 N.E.2d 661, 665 (N.Y. 1993). 6 underlying felony killed co-felon); People v. Lowery, 687 N.E.2d 973, 976 (Ill. 1997) (applying a broad interpretation of the felony murder rule to uphold conviction for felony murder where the intended victim of the armed robbery resisted and accidentally killed an

22
People v. Aarongreen
mich · 1980 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010The felony murder doctrine was "continuously modified and restricted in England, the country of its birth, until its ultimate rejection by Parliament in 1957." Aaron, 299 N.W.2d at 310-11 . .

2010See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 173 Ariz. 552 , 845 P.2d 478, 482 (Ariz.Ct.App.1992); Mikenas v. State, 367 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla.1978); People v. Dekens, 182 Ill.2d 247 , 230 Ill.Dec. 984 , 695 N.E.2d 474, 475 (1998); Sheckles v. State, 684 N.E.2d 201, 205 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); State v. Baker, 607 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Mo.1980); People v. Hernandez, 82 N.Y.2d 309 , 604 N.Y.S.2d 524 , 624 N.E.2d 661, 665 (1993). [5] The felony murder doctrine was "continuously modified and restricted in England, the country of its birth, until its ultimate rejection by Parliament in 1957." Aaron, 299 N.W.2d at 310-11 . [6] T

22
Mikenas v. Stategreen
fla · 1978 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 173 Ariz. 552 , 845 P.2d 478, 482 (Ariz.Ct.App.1992); Mikenas v. State, 367 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla.1978); People v. Dekens, 182 Ill.2d 247 , 230 Ill.Dec. 984 , 695 N.E.2d 474, 475 (1998); Sheckles v. State, 684 N.E.2d 201, 205 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); State v. Baker, 607 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Mo.1980); People v. Hernandez, 82 N.Y.2d 309 , 604 N.Y.S.2d 524 , 624 N.E.2d 661, 665 (1993). [5] The felony murder doctrine was "continuously modified and restricted in England, the country of its birth, until its ultimate rejection by Parliament in 1957." Aaron, 299 N.W.2d at 310-11 . [6] T

2009See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 845 P.2d 478, 482 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992); Mikenas v. State, 367 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1978); People v. Dekens, 695 N.E.2d 474, 475 (Ill. 1998); Sheckles v. State, 684 N.E.2d 201, 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997); State v. Baker, 607 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Mo. 1980); People v. Hernandez, 624 N.E.2d 661, 665 (N.Y. 1993). 6 underlying felony killed co-felon); People v. Lowery, 687 N.E.2d 973, 976 (Ill. 1997) (applying a broad interpretation of the felony murder rule to uphold conviction for felony murder where the intended victim of the armed robbery resisted and accidentally killed an

22
State v. Oimengreen
wis · 1994 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010See State v. Oimen, 184 Wis.2d 423 , 516 N.W.2d 399, 404 (1994) (upholding a conviction under the felony-murder rule when the intended victim of the underlying felony killed a co-felon); People v. Lowery, 178 Ill.2d 462 , 227 Ill.Dec. 491 , 687 N.E.2d 973, 976 (1997) (applying a broad interpretation of the felony murder rule to uphold a conviction where the intended victim of the armed robbery resisted and accidentally killed an innocent bystander).

2010See State v. Oimen, 184 Wis.2d 423 , 516 N.W.2d 399, 404 (1994) (upholding a conviction under the felony-murder rule when the intended victim of the underlying felony killed a co-felon); People v. Lowery, 178 Ill.2d 462 , 227 Ill.Dec. 491 , 687 N.E.2d 973, 976 (1997) (applying a broad interpretation of the felony murder rule to uphold a conviction where the intended victim of the armed robbery resisted and accidentally killed an innocent bystander).

22
Campbell v. Stategreen
md · 1982 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del.1980); State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (1959); Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 , 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (1965); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528 , 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766, 768 (1973); State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1977); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

2010See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del.1980); State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (1959); Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 , 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (1965); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528 , 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766, 768 (1973); State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1977); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

22
State v. Hokensongreen
idaho · 1974 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010For example, in State v. Hokenson, 96 Idaho 283, 284 , 527 P.2d 487, 488 (1974), this Court used the “stream of events” language when “Hokenson, armed with a homemade bomb and a knife, entered Dean’s Drug Center, Lewiston, on the evening of January 13, 1972 with the intent to commit robbery.

2010For example, in State v. Hokenson, 96 Idaho 283, 284 , 527 P.2d 487, 488 (1974), this Court used the “stream of events” language when “Hokenson, armed with a homemade bomb and a knife, entered Dean’s Drug Center, Lewiston, on the evening of January 13, 1972 with the intent to commit robbery.

22
State v. . Oxendinegreen
nc · 1924 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del.1980); State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (1959); Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 , 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (1965); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528 , 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766, 768 (1973); State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1977); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

2010See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del.1980); State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (1959); Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 , 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (1965); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528 , 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766, 768 (1973); State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1977); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

22
State v. Garnergreen
la · 1959 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del.1980); State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (1959); Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 , 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (1965); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528 , 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766, 768 (1973); State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1977); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

2010See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del.1980); State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (1959); Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 , 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (1965); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528 , 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766, 768 (1973); State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1977); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

22
State v. Bakergreen
mo · 1980 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 173 Ariz. 552 , 845 P.2d 478, 482 (Ariz.Ct.App.1992); Mikenas v. State, 367 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla.1978); People v. Dekens, 182 Ill.2d 247 , 230 Ill.Dec. 984 , 695 N.E.2d 474, 475 (1998); Sheckles v. State, 684 N.E.2d 201, 205 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); State v. Baker, 607 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Mo.1980); People v. Hernandez, 82 N.Y.2d 309 , 604 N.Y.S.2d 524 , 624 N.E.2d 661, 665 (1993). [5] The felony murder doctrine was "continuously modified and restricted in England, the country of its birth, until its ultimate rejection by Parliament in 1957." Aaron, 299 N.W.2d at 310-11 . [6] T

2009See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 845 P.2d 478, 482 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992); Mikenas v. State, 367 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1978); People v. Dekens, 695 N.E.2d 474, 475 (Ill. 1998); Sheckles v. State, 684 N.E.2d 201, 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997); State v. Baker, 607 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Mo. 1980); People v. Hernandez, 624 N.E.2d 661, 665 (N.Y. 1993). 6 underlying felony killed co-felon); People v. Lowery, 687 N.E.2d 973, 976 (Ill. 1997) (applying a broad interpretation of the felony murder rule to uphold conviction for felony murder where the intended victim of the armed robbery resisted and accidentally killed an

22
State v. Lopezgreen
arizctapp · 1992 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 173 Ariz. 552 , 845 P.2d 478, 482 (Ariz.Ct.App.1992); Mikenas v. State, 367 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla.1978); People v. Dekens, 182 Ill.2d 247 , 230 Ill.Dec. 984 , 695 N.E.2d 474, 475 (1998); Sheckles v. State, 684 N.E.2d 201, 205 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); State v. Baker, 607 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Mo.1980); People v. Hernandez, 82 N.Y.2d 309 , 604 N.Y.S.2d 524 , 624 N.E.2d 661, 665 (1993). [5] The felony murder doctrine was "continuously modified and restricted in England, the country of its birth, until its ultimate rejection by Parliament in 1957." Aaron, 299 N.W.2d at 310-11 . [6] T

2010See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 173 Ariz. 552 , 845 P.2d 478, 482 (Ariz.Ct.App.1992); Mikenas v. State, 367 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla.1978); People v. Dekens, 182 Ill.2d 247 , 230 Ill.Dec. 984 , 695 N.E.2d 474, 475 (1998); Sheckles v. State, 684 N.E.2d 201, 205 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); State v. Baker, 607 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Mo.1980); People v. Hernandez, 82 N.Y.2d 309 , 604 N.Y.S.2d 524 , 624 N.E.2d 661, 665 (1993). [5] The felony murder doctrine was "continuously modified and restricted in England, the country of its birth, until its ultimate rejection by Parliament in 1957." Aaron, 299 N.W.2d at 310-11 . [6] T

22
State v. Jonesgreen
oklacrimapp · 1993 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del.1980); State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (1959); Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 , 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (1965); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528 , 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766, 768 (1973); State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1977); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

2010See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del.1980); State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (1959); Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 , 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (1965); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528 , 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766, 768 (1973); State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1977); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

22
State v. Rustgreen
neb · 1977 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del.1980); State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (1959); Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 , 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (1965); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528 , 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766, 768 (1973); State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1977); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

2010See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del.1980); State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (1959); Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 , 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (1965); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528 , 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766, 768 (1973); State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1977); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

22
Commonwealth v. Ballirogreen
mass · 1965 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del.1980); State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (1959); Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 , 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (1965); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528 , 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766, 768 (1973); State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1977); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

2010See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del.1980); State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (1959); Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 , 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (1965); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528 , 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766, 768 (1973); State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1977); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

22
Weick v. Stategreen
del · 1980 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del.1980); State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (1959); Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 , 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (1965); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528 , 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766, 768 (1973); State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1977); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

2010See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del.1980); State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (1959); Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 , 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (1965); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528 , 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766, 768 (1973); State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1977); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

22
People v. Hernandezgreen
ny · 1993 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 173 Ariz. 552 , 845 P.2d 478, 482 (Ariz.Ct.App.1992); Mikenas v. State, 367 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla.1978); People v. Dekens, 182 Ill.2d 247 , 230 Ill.Dec. 984 , 695 N.E.2d 474, 475 (1998); Sheckles v. State, 684 N.E.2d 201, 205 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); State v. Baker, 607 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Mo.1980); People v. Hernandez, 82 N.Y.2d 309 , 604 N.Y.S.2d 524 , 624 N.E.2d 661, 665 (1993). [5] The felony murder doctrine was "continuously modified and restricted in England, the country of its birth, until its ultimate rejection by Parliament in 1957." Aaron, 299 N.W.2d at 310-11 . [6] T

2010See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 173 Ariz. 552 , 845 P.2d 478, 482 (Ariz.Ct.App.1992); Mikenas v. State, 367 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla.1978); People v. Dekens, 182 Ill.2d 247 , 230 Ill.Dec. 984 , 695 N.E.2d 474, 475 (1998); Sheckles v. State, 684 N.E.2d 201, 205 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); State v. Baker, 607 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Mo.1980); People v. Hernandez, 82 N.Y.2d 309 , 604 N.Y.S.2d 524 , 624 N.E.2d 661, 665 (1993). [5] The felony murder doctrine was "continuously modified and restricted in England, the country of its birth, until its ultimate rejection by Parliament in 1957." Aaron, 299 N.W.2d at 310-11 . [6] T

22
Wooden v. Commonwealthgreen
va · 1981 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010Crim.App.1993); Commonwealth v. Redline, 391 Pa. 486 , 137 A.2d 472, 482-83 (1958); State v. Severs, 759 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Tenn.Crim.App.1988); Wooden v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 758 , 284 S.E.2d 811, 816 (1981). .A minority of states have adopted the proximate-cause theory of the felony murder rule.

2010Crim.App.1993); Commonwealth v. Redline, 391 Pa. 486 , 137 A.2d 472, 482-83 (1958); State v. Severs, 759 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Tenn.Crim.App.1988); Wooden v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 758 , 284 S.E.2d 811, 816 (1981). .A minority of states have adopted the proximate-cause theory of the felony murder rule.

22
People v. Dekensgreen
ill · 1998 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 173 Ariz. 552 , 845 P.2d 478, 482 (Ariz.Ct.App.1992); Mikenas v. State, 367 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla.1978); People v. Dekens, 182 Ill.2d 247 , 230 Ill.Dec. 984 , 695 N.E.2d 474, 475 (1998); Sheckles v. State, 684 N.E.2d 201, 205 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); State v. Baker, 607 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Mo.1980); People v. Hernandez, 82 N.Y.2d 309 , 604 N.Y.S.2d 524 , 624 N.E.2d 661, 665 (1993). [5] The felony murder doctrine was "continuously modified and restricted in England, the country of its birth, until its ultimate rejection by Parliament in 1957." Aaron, 299 N.W.2d at 310-11 . [6] T

2010See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 173 Ariz. 552 , 845 P.2d 478, 482 (Ariz.Ct.App.1992); Mikenas v. State, 367 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla.1978); People v. Dekens, 182 Ill.2d 247 , 230 Ill.Dec. 984 , 695 N.E.2d 474, 475 (1998); Sheckles v. State, 684 N.E.2d 201, 205 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); State v. Baker, 607 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Mo.1980); People v. Hernandez, 82 N.Y.2d 309 , 604 N.Y.S.2d 524 , 624 N.E.2d 661, 665 (1993). [5] The felony murder doctrine was "continuously modified and restricted in England, the country of its birth, until its ultimate rejection by Parliament in 1957." Aaron, 299 N.W.2d at 310-11 . [6] T

22
State v. Windsorgreen
idaho · 1985 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
2 sentences

2024Under the felony murder rule, a defendant who participates in a felony can be held liable for “the death of any person 10 killed during the commission of the felony, regardless of the individual defendant’s intent that a death occur.” State v. Windsor, 110 Idaho 410, 419 , 716 P.2d 1182, 1191 (1985).

2024Under the felony murder rule, a defendant who participates in a felony can be held liable for “the death of any person 10 killed during the commission of the felony, regardless of the individual defendant’s intent that a death occur.” State v. Windsor, 110 Idaho 410, 419 , 716 P.2d 1182, 1191 (1985).

11
State v. Pinagreen
idaho · 2010 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013In analyzing that issue, we noted that the felony-murder rule had never been applied by an appellate court in Idaho “that resulted in a person involved in the commission of a felony being held responsible for a killing caused by a third person not involved in the underlying felony.” Id. at 146 , 233 P.3d at 77 .

2013In analyzing that issue, we noted that the felony-murder rule had never been applied by an appellate court in Idaho “that resulted in a person involved in the commission of a felony being held responsible for a killing caused by a third person not involved in the underlying felony.” Id. at 146 , 233 P.3d at 77 .

11
State v. Seversgreen
tenncrimapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010Crim.App.1993); Commonwealth v. Redline, 391 Pa. 486 , 137 A.2d 472, 482-83 (1958); State v. Severs, 759 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Tenn.Crim.App.1988); Wooden v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 758 , 284 S.E.2d 811, 816 (1981). .A minority of states have adopted the proximate-cause theory of the felony murder rule.

2010Crim.App.1993); Commonwealth v. Redline, 391 Pa. 486 , 137 A.2d 472, 482-83 (1958); State v. Severs, 759 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Tenn.Crim.App.1988); Wooden v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 758 , 284 S.E.2d 811, 816 (1981). [4] A minority of states have adopted the proximate-cause theory of the felony murder rule.

11
Commonwealth v. Redlinegreen
pa · 1958 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010Crim.App.1993); Commonwealth v. Redline, 391 Pa. 486 , 137 A.2d 472, 482-83 (1958); State v. Severs, 759 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Tenn.Crim.App.1988); Wooden v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 758 , 284 S.E.2d 811, 816 (1981). .A minority of states have adopted the proximate-cause theory of the felony murder rule.

2010Crim.App.1993); Commonwealth v. Redline, 391 Pa. 486 , 137 A.2d 472, 482-83 (1958); State v. Severs, 759 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Tenn.Crim.App.1988); Wooden v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 758 , 284 S.E.2d 811, 816 (1981). .A minority of states have adopted the proximate-cause theory of the felony murder rule.

11
State v. Harrisonred
nm · 1977 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del.1980); State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (1959); Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 , 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (1965); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528 , 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766, 768 (1973); State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1977); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

2010See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del.1980); State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (1959); Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 , 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (1965); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528 , 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 89 Nev. 78 , 506 P.2d 766, 768 (1973); State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1977); State v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658 , 122 S.E. 568, 570 (1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

11
State v. Lankfordgreen
idaho · 1989 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000In State v. Lankford, 116 Idaho 860 , 781 P.2d 197 (1989), this Court, in discussing the felony murder rule, noted Idaho’s homicide statutes define murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

2000In State v. Lankford, 116 Idaho 860 , 781 P.2d 197 (1989), this Court, in discussing the felony murder rule, noted Idaho’s homicide statutes define murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

11
State v. Carvergreen
idaho · 1972 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Mooney green
idaho · 1882
2 sentences

2010The first Idaho ease to address the policy behind the felony murder rule stated: “It is the policy of the law to hold persons engaged in felonies, or attempts to commit felonies, responsible for all the consequences of their felonious acts, whether such consequences were intended or not----” People v. Mooney, 2 Idaho 24 , 2 P. 876 (1882).

2010The first Idaho case to address the policy behind the felony murder rule stated: "It is the policy of the law to hold persons engaged in felonies, or attempts to commit felonies, responsible for all the consequences of their felonious acts, whether such consequences were intended or not...." People v. Mooney, 2 Idaho 24 , 2 P. 876 (1882).

22009–2010
State v. Scroggins green
idaho · 1986
2 sentences

2013We also stated, “Additionally, this Court indicated in State v. Scroggins, 110 Idaho 380 , 716 P.2d 1152 (1985), that Idaho’s felony murder rule requires a finding that each participant had the specific intent to commit the underlying felony.” Id. at 147, 233 P.3d at 78 .

2013We also stated, “Additionally, this Court indicated in State v. Scroggins, 110 Idaho 380 , 716 P.2d 1152 (1985), that Idaho’s felony murder rule requires a finding that each participant had the specific intent to commit the underlying felony.” Id. at 147, 233 P.3d at 78 .

12013–2013
Jackson v. State green
nm · 1979
1 sentence

2009See, e.g., Weick v. State, 420 A.2d 159, 161-62 (Del. 1980); State v. Garner, 115 So.2d 855, 861-64 (La. 1959); Campbell v. State, 444 A.2d 1034, 1037 (Md. 1982); Commonwealth v. Balliro, 209 N.E.2d 308, 313 (Mass. 1965); State v. Rust, 250 N.W.2d 867, 875 (Neb. 1977); Clark County Sheriff v. Hicks, 506 P.2d 766, 768 (Nev. 1973); Jackson v. State, 589 P.2d 1052 (N.M. 1979); State v. Oxendine, 122 S.E. 568, 570 (N.C. 1924); State v. Jones, 859 P.2d 514, 515 (Okla.

12009–2009
Sandstrom v. Montana green
scotus · 1979
11989–1989
State v. Lankford green
idaho · 1987
11989–1989
State v. Reding green
idaho · 1932
11976–1976

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ID § Idaho Code § 18-4003 (8) ID § Idaho Code § 18-4001 (5) ID § Idaho Code § 19-2018 (4) ID § Idaho Code § 19-2020 (4) ID § Idaho Code § 19-2405 (4) ID § Idaho Code § 19-2406 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 2762 (1951–2026) NC 247 (1973–2026) IL 148 (1965–2025) KS 107 (1967–2022) PA 89 (1955–2026) FL 86 (1966–2025) MA 85 (1965–2024) TX 77 (1977–2026) AL 74 (1978–2026) MD 65 (1970–2024) IA 62 (1975–2025) TN 61 (1975–2025) MO 53 (1964–2020) AZ 52 (1965–2022) MI 49 (1963–2026) WA 42 (1961–2026) NV 38 (1965–2019) OH 35 (1980–2024) VA 33 (1978–2026) NM 32 (1960–2025) MN 29 (1979–2024) WV 28 (1977–2021) GA 27 (1975–2025) LA 25 (1961–2023) OK 24 (1983–2024) MT 23 (1976–2024) NJ 23 (1969–2022) NY 20 (1960–2019) OR 14 (1969–2026) WY 14 (1978–2025) ID 13 (1976–2024) CO 12 (1966–2025) IN 11 (1973–2019) CT 11 (1975–2025) MS 10 (1977–2013) DC 8 (1976–2020) AR 7 (1976–2025) SC 7 (1975–2018) DE 5 (1968–2022) RI 5 (1980–2023) UT 4 (1992–2003) VT 3 (1983–2017) VI 3 (2008–2017) SD 3 (1980–2002) WI 2 (1988–1994) NE 2 (1991–2019) KY 2 (2000–2001) AK 2 (1995–2018)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check