86 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2020–2026 80 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. Garciagreen2 sentences2026This standard “requires weighing the probative force of the record as a whole while excluding the erroneous evidence and at the same time comparing it against the probative force of the error.” Id. 2026This standard “requires weighing the probative force of the record as a whole while excluding the erroneous evidence and at the same time comparing it against the probative force of the error.” Id. | 6 | 66 |
State v. Granthamgreen2 sentences2023We next consider the probative force of the admission of A.S.’s statement in the CARES interview that it “had been seven years since [Wright] slept with a girl.” It is well established that the admission of improper evidence does not automatically require a mistrial, State v. Grantham, 146 Idaho 490, 498 , 198 P.3d 128, 136 (Ct. App. 2008); State v. Hill, 140 Idaho 625, 631 , 97 P.3d 1014, 1020 (Ct. App. 2004), and a trial court’s curative instruction is a factor to consider when determining the probative force of the error. 2023We next consider the probative force of the admission of A.S.’s statement in the CARES interview that it “had been seven years since [Wright] slept with a girl.” It is well established that the admission of improper evidence does not automatically require a mistrial, State v. Grantham, 146 Idaho 490, 498 , 198 P.3d 128, 136 (Ct. App. 2008); State v. Hill, 140 Idaho 625, 631 , 97 P.3d 1014, 1020 (Ct. App. 2004), and a trial court’s curative instruction is a factor to consider when determining the probative force of the error. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences2023We next consider the probative force of the admission of A.S.’s statement in the CARES interview that it “had been seven years since [Wright] slept with a girl.” It is well established that the admission of improper evidence does not automatically require a mistrial, State v. Grantham, 146 Idaho 490, 498 , 198 P.3d 128, 136 (Ct. App. 2008); State v. Hill, 140 Idaho 625, 631 , 97 P.3d 1014, 1020 (Ct. App. 2004), and a trial court’s curative instruction is a factor to consider when determining the probative force of the error. 2023We next consider the probative force of the admission of A.S.’s statement in the CARES interview that it “had been seven years since [Wright] slept with a girl.” It is well established that the admission of improper evidence does not automatically require a mistrial, State v. Grantham, 146 Idaho 490, 498 , 198 P.3d 128, 136 (Ct. App. 2008); State v. Hill, 140 Idaho 625, 631 , 97 P.3d 1014, 1020 (Ct. App. 2004), and a trial court’s curative instruction is a factor to consider when determining the probative force of the error. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Watkinsgreen2 sentences2021State v. Watkins, 152 Idaho 764, 767 , 274 P.3d 1279, 1282 (Ct. App. 2012). 2021State v. Watkins, 152 Idaho 764, 767 , 274 P.3d 1279, 1282 (Ct. App. 2012). | 2 | 2 |
Yates v. Evattgreen2 sentences2024The appellate court must weigh “the probative force of the record as a whole while excluding the erroneous evidence and at the same time comparing it against the probative force of the error.” Id. 2024The appellate court must weigh “the probative force of the record as a whole while excluding the erroneous evidence and at the same time comparing it against the probative force of the error.” Id. | 1 | 18 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2025State v. Smith, 170 Idaho 800, 810 , 516 P.3d 1071, 1081 (2022). 6 This standard requires weighing the probative force of the record while excluding the erroneous evidence and at the same time comparing it against the probative force of the error. 2025State v. Smith, 170 Idaho 800, 810 , 516 P.3d 1071, 1081 (2022). 6 This standard requires weighing the probative force of the record while excluding the erroneous evidence and at the same time comparing it against the probative force of the error. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Richardsongreen2 sentences2023Richardson, 168 Idaho at 31 , 478 P.3d at 760 . 2023Richardson, 168 Idaho at 31 , 478 P.3d at 760 . | 1 | 4 |
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2020Id. at ___, 462 P.3d at 1138-39 . 2020To rely on the “overwhelming evidence” standard is to commit the same mistake the United States Supreme Court overturned in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. at 24. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Piercegreen1 sentence2023See generally State v. Pierce, 137 Idaho 296, 299 (Ct. App. 2002) (pointing out the “recognized propensity” that people involved in dealing drugs will carry firearms)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2021However, “[u]nder the cumulative errors doctrine, an accumulation of irregularities, each of which might be harmless in itself, may in the aggregate reveal the absence of a fair trial in contravention of the defendant’s right to due process.” State v. Samuel, 165 Idaho 746, 778 , 452 P.3d 768, 800 (2019) (quoting State v. Martinez, 125 Idaho 445, 453 , 872 P.2d 708, 716 (1994)). 2021However, “[u]nder the cumulative errors doctrine, an accumulation of irregularities, each of which might be harmless in itself, may in the aggregate reveal the absence of a fair trial in contravention of the defendant’s right to due process.” State v. Samuel, 165 Idaho 746, 778 , 452 P.3d 768, 800 (2019) (quoting State v. Martinez, 125 Idaho 445, 453 , 872 P.2d 708, 716 (1994)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Samuelgreen2 sentences2021However, “[u]nder the cumulative errors doctrine, an accumulation of irregularities, each of which might be harmless in itself, may in the aggregate reveal the absence of a fair trial in contravention of the defendant’s right to due process.” State v. Samuel, 165 Idaho 746, 778 , 452 P.3d 768, 800 (2019) (quoting State v. Martinez, 125 Idaho 445, 453 , 872 P.2d 708, 716 (1994)). 2021However, “[u]nder the cumulative errors doctrine, an accumulation of irregularities, each of which might be harmless in itself, may in the aggregate reveal the absence of a fair trial in contravention of the defendant’s right to due process.” State v. Samuel, 165 Idaho 746, 778 , 452 P.3d 768, 800 (2019) (quoting State v. Martinez, 125 Idaho 445, 453 , 872 P.2d 708, 716 (1994)). | 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. Fox
green
2 sentences2023“This Court utilizes a two-part analysis to assess harmless error, considering: (1) ‘[t]he probative force of evidence untainted by error against a defendant’ and (2) the weight of the untainted evidence ‘against the probative force of the error itself.’” State v. Fox, 170 Idaho 846 , 863, 517 P.3d 107 , 124 (2022) (alteration in original) (quoting Garcia, 166 Idaho at 675, 462 P.3d at 1139). 2023“This Court utilizes a two-part analysis to assess harmless error, considering: (1) ‘[t]he probative force of evidence untainted by error against a defendant’ and (2) the weight of the untainted evidence ‘against the probative force of the error itself.’” State v. Fox, 170 Idaho 846 , 863, 517 P.3d 107 , 124 (2022) (alteration in original) (quoting Garcia, 166 Idaho at 675, 462 P.3d at 1139). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.