case of fundamental error in Idaho

10 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2012 0 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 (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Haggardgreen idaho · 1971 · cited in 8 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1984–2012 2 sentences 2012“However, ‘[i]n the case of fundamental error in a criminal case the Supreme Court may consider the same even though no objection ha[s] been made at ... trial.’ ” Id. at 74 , 106 P.3d at 400 (quoting State v. Haggard, 94 Idaho 249, 251 , 486 P.2d 260, 262 (1971)). 2012“However, ‘[i]n the case of fundamental error in a criminal case the Supreme Court may consider the same even though no objection ha[s] been made at ... trial.’ ” Id. at 74 , 106 P.3d at 400 (quoting State v. Haggard, 94 Idaho 249, 251 , 486 P.2d 260, 262 (1971)).	7	8
State v. Peregrinagreen idaho · 2011 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012“As set forth in this Court’s 256 decision in Perry, an asserted error in a criminal trial raised for the first time on appeal is still renewable under the fundamental error analysis even if it may have been ‘forfeited’ below.” State v. Peregrina, 151 Idaho 538, 542 , 261 P.3d 815, 819 (2011) (citing State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 225 , 245 P.3d 961, 977 (2010)). 1. 2012“As set forth in this Court’s 256 decision in Perry, an asserted error in a criminal trial raised for the first time on appeal is still renewable under the fundamental error analysis even if it may have been ‘forfeited’ below.” State v. Peregrina, 151 Idaho 538, 542 , 261 P.3d 815, 819 (2011) (citing State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 225 , 245 P.3d 961, 977 (2010)). 1.	1	1
State v. Perrygreen idaho · 2010 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012“As set forth in this Court’s 256 decision in Perry, an asserted error in a criminal trial raised for the first time on appeal is still renewable under the fundamental error analysis even if it may have been ‘forfeited’ below.” State v. Peregrina, 151 Idaho 538, 542 , 261 P.3d 815, 819 (2011) (citing State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 225 , 245 P.3d 961, 977 (2010)). 1. 2012“As set forth in this Court’s 256 decision in Perry, an asserted error in a criminal trial raised for the first time on appeal is still renewable under the fundamental error analysis even if it may have been ‘forfeited’ below.” State v. Peregrina, 151 Idaho 538, 542 , 261 P.3d 815, 819 (2011) (citing State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 225 , 245 P.3d 961, 977 (2010)). 1.	1	1
State v. Knowltongreen idaho · 1993 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005Because a claim that the State breached a plea agreement affects whether the agreement was knowingly or voluntarily entered, it “goes to the foundation or basis of a defendant’s rights____” State v. Knowlton, 123 Idaho 916, 918 , 854 P.2d 259, 261 (1993). 2005Because a claim that the State breached a plea agreement affects whether the agreement was knowingly or voluntarily entered, it “goes to the foundation or basis of a defendant’s rights____” State v. Knowlton, 123 Idaho 916, 918 , 854 P.2d 259, 261 (1993).	1	1
State v. Binghamgreen idaho · 1989 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 2 sentences 1993State v. Bingham, 116 Idaho 415, 423 , 776 P.2d 424, 432 (1989). 1993State v. Bingham, 116 Idaho 415, 423 , 776 P.2d 424, 432 (1989).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (2)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Jafek green idaho · 2005 2 sentences 2012“However, ‘[i]n the case of fundamental error in a criminal case the Supreme Court may consider the same even though no objection ha[s] been made at ... trial.’ ” Id. at 74 , 106 P.3d at 400 (quoting State v. Haggard, 94 Idaho 249, 251 , 486 P.2d 260, 262 (1971)). 2012“However, ‘[i]n the case of fundamental error in a criminal case the Supreme Court may consider the same even though no objection ha[s] been made at ... trial.’ ” Id. at 74 , 106 P.3d at 400 (quoting State v. Haggard, 94 Idaho 249, 251 , 486 P.2d 260, 262 (1971)).	1	2012–2012
State v. Wright green idaho · 1975 2 sentences 1986E.g., State v. Wright, 97 Idaho 229 , 542 P.2d 63 (1975). 1986E.g., State v. Wright, 97 Idaho 229 , 542 P.2d 63 (1975).	1	1986–1986

Where else courts name it

ID 10 (1984–2012) TX 4 (1978–1990) FL 4 (1982–2025) NM 3 (1966–2016) IN 3 (1980–1997) AZ 2 (1983–2005)

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