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.
11 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2021 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2005State v. Smith, 117 Idaho 891, 898 , 792 P.2d 916, 923 (1990); State v. Lovelass, 133 Idaho 160, 167 , 983 P.2d 233, 240 (Ct.App.1999). 2005State v. Smith, 117 Idaho 891, 898 , 792 P.2d 916, 923 (1990); State v. Lovelass, 133 Idaho 160, 167 , 983 P.2d 233, 240 (Ct.App.1999). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Lovelassgreen2 sentences2005State v. Smith, 117 Idaho 891, 898 , 792 P.2d 916, 923 (1990); State v. Lovelass, 133 Idaho 160, 167 , 983 P.2d 233, 240 (Ct.App.1999). 2005State v. Smith, 117 Idaho 891, 898 , 792 P.2d 916, 923 (1990); State v. Lovelass, 133 Idaho 160, 167 , 983 P.2d 233, 240 (Ct.App.1999). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Grossgreen2 sentences2020State v. Gross, 146 Idaho 15, 18 , 189 P.3d 477, 480 (Ct. App. 2008); see also State v. Parker, 157 Idaho 132, 146 , 334 P.3d 806, 820 (2014); State v. Cortez, 135 Idaho 561, 565 , 21 P.3d 498, 502 (Ct. App. 2001). 2020State v. Gross, 146 Idaho 15, 18 , 189 P.3d 477, 480 (Ct. App. 2008); see also State v. Parker, 157 Idaho 132, 146 , 334 P.3d 806, 820 (2014); State v. Cortez, 135 Idaho 561, 565 , 21 P.3d 498, 502 (Ct. App. 2001). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Cortezgreen2 sentences2020State v. Gross, 146 Idaho 15, 18 , 189 P.3d 477, 480 (Ct. App. 2008); see also State v. Parker, 157 Idaho 132, 146 , 334 P.3d 806, 820 (2014); State v. Cortez, 135 Idaho 561, 565 , 21 P.3d 498, 502 (Ct. App. 2001). 2020State v. Gross, 146 Idaho 15, 18 , 189 P.3d 477, 480 (Ct. App. 2008); see also State v. Parker, 157 Idaho 132, 146 , 334 P.3d 806, 820 (2014); State v. Cortez, 135 Idaho 561, 565 , 21 P.3d 498, 502 (Ct. App. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Frederickgreen1 sentence2020See id. at 33 & n.1, 752 P.2d at 635 & n.1. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Russell James Parkergreen2 sentences2020State v. Gross, 146 Idaho 15, 18 , 189 P.3d 477, 480 (Ct. App. 2008); see also State v. Parker, 157 Idaho 132, 146 , 334 P.3d 806, 820 (2014); State v. Cortez, 135 Idaho 561, 565 , 21 P.3d 498, 502 (Ct. App. 2001). 2020State v. Gross, 146 Idaho 15, 18 , 189 P.3d 477, 480 (Ct. App. 2008); see also State v. Parker, 157 Idaho 132, 146 , 334 P.3d 806, 820 (2014); State v. Cortez, 135 Idaho 561, 565 , 21 P.3d 498, 502 (Ct. App. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Guinngreen2 sentences2020Because credibility was central to the case, and the jury may have discounted the defendant’s testimony based on his prior felony, we held that there was reversible error. 4 Id. 4 The district court in Guinn issued a curative jury instruction regarding the witness’s statement. 2020Guinn, 114 Idaho at 34 , 752 P.2d at 636 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Timmonsgreen2 sentences2009This Court has held, regarding an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct, that an error only rises to the level of fundamental error if it is “so egregious or inflammatory that any ensuing prejudice could not have been remedied by a curative jury instruction.” State v. Timmons, 145 Idaho 279, 287 , 178 P.3d 644, 652 (Ct.App.2007). 2009This Court has held, regarding an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct, that an error only rises to the level of fundamental error if it is “so egregious or inflammatory that any ensuing prejudice could not have been remedied by a curative jury instruction.” State v. Timmons, 145 Idaho 279, 287 , 178 P.3d 644, 652 (Ct.App.2007). | 1 | 1 |
State v. MacDonaldgreen2 sentences1999State v. MacDonald, 131 Idaho 367, 371-72 , 956 P.2d 1314, 1318-19 (Ct.App.1998); State v. Gray, supra. Prosecutorial misconduct rises to the level of fundamental error only if the acts or comments constituting the misconduct are so egregious or inflammatory that any ensuing prejudice cannot be remedied by a curative jury instruction. 1999State v. MacDonald, 131 Idaho 367, 371-72 , 956 P.2d 1314, 1318-19 (Ct.App.1998); State v. Gray, supra. Prosecutorial misconduct rises to the level of fundamental error only if the acts or comments constituting the misconduct are so egregious or inflammatory that any ensuing prejudice cannot be remedied by a curative jury instruction. | 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. Kuhn
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2007Id. | 2 | 2007–2008 |
State v. Saenz
green
2 sentences2021“Courts have consistently held prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments will rise to the level of fundamental error only if the misconduct was so egregious or inflammatory that any ensuing prejudice could not have been remedied by a curative jury instruction informing the jury to disregard the comments.” Id. at 451 , 470 P.3d at 1260 . 2021“Courts have consistently held prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments will rise to the level of fundamental error only if the misconduct was so egregious or inflammatory that any ensuing prejudice could not have been remedied by a curative jury instruction informing the jury to disregard the comments.” Id. at 451 , 470 P.3d at 1260 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences2020Saenz, ___ Idaho at ___, ___ P.3d at ___; Miller, 165 Idaho at 119 , 443 P.3d at 133 . 8 Further, under the third prong of the analysis, courts have consistently held prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments will rise to the level of fundamental error only if the misconduct was so egregious or inflammatory that any ensuing prejudice could not have been remedied by a curative jury instruction informing the jury to disregard the comments. 2020Saenz, ___ Idaho at ___, ___ P.3d at ___; Miller, 165 Idaho at 119 , 443 P.3d at 133 . 8 Further, under the third prong of the analysis, courts have consistently held prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments will rise to the level of fundamental error only if the misconduct was so egregious or inflammatory that any ensuing prejudice could not have been remedied by a curative jury instruction informing the jury to disregard the comments. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.