10 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2025 4 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. Marksgreen2 sentences2025State v. Marks, 120 Idaho 727, 729 , 819 P.2d 581, 583 (Ct. App. 1991). 2025State v. Marks, 120 Idaho 727, 729 , 819 P.2d 581, 583 (Ct. App. 1991). | 2 | 2 |
Herring v. New Yorkgreen1 sentence2025Closing arguments are intended to “sharpen and clarify the issues for resolution by the trier of fact in a criminal case.” Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 862 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Roman v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Roman v. State, 125 Idaho 644, 650 , 873 P.2d 898, 904 (Ct. App. 1994). 1 Roman filed a successive petition for post-conviction relief on July 28, 1994, which again asserted ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise an alibi defense, among other claims. 2021Roman v. State, 125 Idaho 644, 650 , 873 P.2d 898, 904 (Ct. App. 1994). 1 Roman filed a successive petition for post-conviction relief on July 28, 1994, which again asserted ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise an alibi defense, among other claims. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Tackettgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., People v. Tackett, 742 P.2d 957, 961 (Colo.App.1987) (“[W]here, as here, defendant’s alibi is to be established by testimony of witnesses other than defendant, the decision whether to present such defense is a strategic and tactical decision within the exclusive province of defense counsel.”); Bradley v. State, 33 So.3d 664, 675 (Fla.2010) (“[T]rial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision to utilize an alibi defense as the main defense____”); Reeves v. State, 288 Ga. 545 , 705 S.E.2d 159, 162 (2011) (“[W]hether to present an alibi defense is a strategic and tactical decision th 2015See, e.g., People v. Tackett, 742 P.2d 957, 961 (Colo.App.1987) (“[W]here, as here, defendant’s alibi is to be established by testimony of witnesses other than defendant, the decision whether to present such defense is a strategic and tactical decision within the exclusive province of defense counsel.”); Bradley v. State, 33 So.3d 664, 675 (Fla.2010) (“[T]rial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision to utilize an alibi defense as the main defense____”); Reeves v. State, 288 Ga. 545 , 705 S.E.2d 159, 162 (2011) (“[W]hether to present an alibi defense is a strategic and tactical decision th | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2015See Wright v. United States, 979 A.2d 26, 30 (D.C.2009) (where potential alibi witnesses would present conflicting versions of events, an attorney’s decision not to call them is reasonable); Gilmore v. State, 712 S.W.2d 438, 441 (Mo.Ct.App.1986) (where potential alibi witnesses’ testimony is inconsistent and contradicts defendant’s testimony, counsel does not provide ineffective assistance in failing to call such witnesses). | 1 | 1 |
Bradley v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., People v. Tackett, 742 P.2d 957, 961 (Colo.App.1987) (“[W]here, as here, defendant’s alibi is to be established by testimony of witnesses other than defendant, the decision whether to present such defense is a strategic and tactical decision within the exclusive province of defense counsel.”); Bradley v. State, 33 So.3d 664, 675 (Fla.2010) (“[T]rial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision to utilize an alibi defense as the main defense____”); Reeves v. State, 288 Ga. 545 , 705 S.E.2d 159, 162 (2011) (“[W]hether to present an alibi defense is a strategic and tactical decision th 2015See, e.g., People v. Tackett, 742 P.2d 957, 961 (Colo.App.1987) (“[W]here, as here, defendant’s alibi is to be established by testimony of witnesses other than defendant, the decision whether to present such defense is a strategic and tactical decision within the exclusive province of defense counsel.”); Bradley v. State, 33 So.3d 664, 675 (Fla.2010) (“[T]rial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision to utilize an alibi defense as the main defense____”); Reeves v. State, 288 Ga. 545 , 705 S.E.2d 159, 162 (2011) (“[W]hether to present an alibi defense is a strategic and tactical decision th | 1 | 1 |
State v. Perrygreen1 sentence2015See Wright v. United States, 979 A.2d 26, 30 (D.C.2009) (where potential alibi witnesses would present conflicting versions of events, an attorney’s decision not to call them is reasonable); Gilmore v. State, 712 S.W.2d 438, 441 (Mo.Ct.App.1986) (where potential alibi witnesses’ testimony is inconsistent and contradicts defendant’s testimony, counsel does not provide ineffective assistance in failing to call such witnesses). | 1 | 1 |
Reeves v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., People v. Tackett, 742 P.2d 957, 961 (Colo.App.1987) (“[W]here, as here, defendant’s alibi is to be established by testimony of witnesses other than defendant, the decision whether to present such defense is a strategic and tactical decision within the exclusive province of defense counsel.”); Bradley v. State, 33 So.3d 664, 675 (Fla.2010) (“[T]rial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision to utilize an alibi defense as the main defense____”); Reeves v. State, 288 Ga. 545 , 705 S.E.2d 159, 162 (2011) (“[W]hether to present an alibi defense is a strategic and tactical decision th 2015See, e.g., People v. Tackett, 742 P.2d 957, 961 (Colo.App.1987) (“[W]here, as here, defendant’s alibi is to be established by testimony of witnesses other than defendant, the decision whether to present such defense is a strategic and tactical decision within the exclusive province of defense counsel.”); Bradley v. State, 33 So.3d 664, 675 (Fla.2010) (“[T]rial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision to utilize an alibi defense as the main defense____”); Reeves v. State, 288 Ga. 545 , 705 S.E.2d 159, 162 (2011) (“[W]hether to present an alibi defense is a strategic and tactical decision th | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kelsawgreen2 sentences1990See, e.g., State v. Kelsaw, 11 Or.App. 289 , 502 P.2d 278 (1972), rev’d on other grounds, 14 Or.App. 313 , 513 P.2d 516 (1973); State v. Clark, 209 Mont. 473 , 682 P.2d 1339 (1984). 1990See, e.g., State v. Kelsaw, 11 Or.App. 289 , 502 P.2d 278 (1972), rev’d on other grounds, 14 Or.App. 313 , 513 P.2d 516 (1973); State v. Clark, 209 Mont. 473 , 682 P.2d 1339 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kelsawgreen2 sentences1990See, e.g., State v. Kelsaw, 11 Or.App. 289 , 502 P.2d 278 (1972), rev’d on other grounds, 14 Or.App. 313 , 513 P.2d 516 (1973); State v. Clark, 209 Mont. 473 , 682 P.2d 1339 (1984). 1990See, e.g., State v. Kelsaw, 11 Or.App. 289 , 502 P.2d 278 (1972), rev’d on other grounds, 14 Or.App. 313 , 513 P.2d 516 (1973); State v. Clark, 209 Mont. 473 , 682 P.2d 1339 (1984). | 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. Kevin Louis Ormesher
green
2 sentences2016In State v. Ormesher, 154 Idaho 221 , 296 P.3d 427 (Ct. App. 2012), this Court held the defendant’s defense was not thwarted because he in fact did offer a defense to any allegations that were referenced in the jury instruction. 2016In State v. Ormesher, 154 Idaho 221 , 296 P.3d 427 (Ct. App. 2012), this Court held the defendant’s defense was not thwarted because he in fact did offer a defense to any allegations that were referenced in the jury instruction. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Murphy v. State
green
2 sentences2012Id. at 150-51 , 139 P.3d at 752-53 . 2012Id. at 150-51 , 139 P.3d at 752-53 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Clark
green
2 sentences1990See, e.g., State v. Kelsaw, 11 Or.App. 289 , 502 P.2d 278 (1972), rev’d on other grounds, 14 Or.App. 313 , 513 P.2d 516 (1973); State v. Clark, 209 Mont. 473 , 682 P.2d 1339 (1984). 1990See, e.g., State v. Kelsaw, 11 Or.App. 289 , 502 P.2d 278 (1972), rev’d on other grounds, 14 Or.App. 313 , 513 P.2d 516 (1973); State v. Clark, 209 Mont. 473 , 682 P.2d 1339 (1984). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Grierson
green
2 sentences1990State v. Grierson, 95 Idaho 155 , 504 P.2d 1204 (1972). 1990State v. Grierson, 95 Idaho 155 , 504 P.2d 1204 (1972). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences1972State v. Davis, 6 Idaho 159, 172 , 53 P. 678 (1898). 1972State v. Davis, 6 Idaho 159, 172 , 53 P. 678 (1898). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.