dynamite instruction (Idaho) · Go Syfert
← Idaho issues

dynamite instruction in Idaho

10 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2020 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 (9)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Gomezgreen
idaho · 2002 · cited in 6 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2011–2020
2 sentences

2015The Supreme Court concluded that the district court’s comments “did not direct any jurors to change their minds or attempt to coerce a verdict,” and thus did not amount to a dynamite instruction.3 Id. at 676-77 , 52 P.3d at 320-21 . 3 In that case, however, the Supreme Court did conclude that the judge’s instructions “may well have misled the jury.

2015The Supreme Court concluded that the district court’s comments “did not direct any jurors to change their minds or attempt to coerce a verdict,” and thus did not amount to a dynamite instruction.3 Id. at 676-77 , 52 P.3d at 320-21 . 3 In that case, however, the Supreme Court did conclude that the judge’s instructions “may well have misled the jury.

46
State v. Flintgreen
idaho · 1988 · cited in 4 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1997–2020
2 sentences

1997Lamphere argues that the district court erred in the manner in which it polled the jury after the non-unanimous verdict and because the instruction the court gave the jury before sending it back to deliberate further amounted to a dynamite instruction in violation of State v. Flint, 114 Idaho 806 , 761 P.2d 1158 (1988).

1997Lamphere argues that the district court erred in the manner in which it polled the jury after the non-unanimous verdict and because the instruction the court gave the jury before sending it back to deliberate further amounted to a dynamite instruction in violation of State v. Flint, 114 Idaho 806 , 761 P.2d 1158 (1988).

34
State v. Martinezgreen
idahoctapp · 1992 · cited in 3 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1999–2013
2 sentences

2013“A dynamite instruction is one that directs a deadlocked jury to continue deliberating and exhorts those jurors holding a minority view to reconsider their position.” State v. Gomez, 137 Idaho 671, 676 , 52 P.3d 315, 320 (2002) (citing State v. Martinez, 122 Idaho 158, 162 , 832 P.2d 331, 335 (Ct. App. 1992)).

2013“A dynamite instruction is one that directs a deadlocked jury to continue deliberating and exhorts those jurors holding a minority view to reconsider their position.” State v. Gomez, 137 Idaho 671, 676 , 52 P.3d 315, 320 (2002) (citing State v. Martinez, 122 Idaho 158, 162 , 832 P.2d 331, 335 (Ct. App. 1992)).

33
Lowenfield v. Phelpsgreen
scotus · 1988 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2011–2013
2 sentences

2013Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 239-41 (1988).

2011Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 239-41 , 108 S.Ct. 546, 551-53 , 98 L.Ed.2d 568, 578-80 (1988).

22
State v. Perrygreen
idaho · 2010 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020“Generally, Idaho’s appellate courts will not consider error not preserved for appeal through an objection at trial.” State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 224 , 245 P.3d 961, 976 (2010).

2020“Generally, Idaho’s appellate courts will not consider error not preserved for appeal through an objection at trial.” State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 224 , 245 P.3d 961, 976 (2010).

11
State v. Hernandezgreen
idahoctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002“A dynamite instruction is one that directs a deadlocked jury to continue deliberating and exhorts those jurors holding a minority view to reconsider their position.” State v. Hernandez, 133 Idaho 576, 586 , 990 P.2d 742, 752 (Ct.App.1999) (citing State v. Martinez, 122 Idaho 158, 162 , 832 P.2d 331, 335 (Ct.App.1992)).

2002“A dynamite instruction is one that directs a deadlocked jury to continue deliberating and exhorts those jurors holding a minority view to reconsider their position.” State v. Hernandez, 133 Idaho 576, 586 , 990 P.2d 742, 752 (Ct.App.1999) (citing State v. Martinez, 122 Idaho 158, 162 , 832 P.2d 331, 335 (Ct.App.1992)).

11
State v. Claygreen
idahoctapp · 1987 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
2 sentences

1999State v. Martinez, 122 Idaho 158, 162 , 832 P.2d 331, 335 (Ct.App.1992); State v. Clay, 112 Idaho 261, 263 , 731 P.2d 804, 806 (Ct. App.1987).

1999State v. Martinez, 122 Idaho 158, 162 , 832 P.2d 331, 335 (Ct.App.1992); State v. Clay, 112 Idaho 261, 263 , 731 P.2d 804, 806 (Ct. App.1987).

11
Remlinger v. Dravo Corporationgreen
idaho · 1971 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988
2 sentences

1988The Court warned, however, that in order to avoid undue emphasis, a dynamite instruction, if given at all, must be given together with all of the other instructions, and not as a separate point of law presented after considerable deliberation had already taken place. 94 Idaho at 292, 486 P.2d at 1005.

1988The Court warned, however, that in order to avoid undue emphasis, a dynamite instruction, if given at all, must be given together with all of the other instructions, and not as a separate point of law presented after considerable deliberation had already taken place. 94 Idaho at 292, 486 P.2d at 1005.

11
State v. Thomasgreen
ariz · 1959 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988
2 sentences

1988State v. Thomas, 86 Ariz. 161, 166 , 342 P.2d 197, 200 (1959).

1988State v. Thomas, 86 Ariz. 161, 166 , 342 P.2d 197, 200 (1959).

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 (1)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Pullin green
idahoctapp · 2011
2 sentences

2013In State v. Pullin, 152 Idaho 82 , 266 P.3d 1187 (Ct. App. 2011), this Court stated: The United States Supreme Court has held that in order for a petitioner to be denied a constitutional right through the use of a dynamite instruction (or “supplemental charge”), the instruction must be coercive.

2013In State v. Pullin, 152 Idaho 82 , 266 P.3d 1187 (Ct. App. 2011), this Court stated: The United States Supreme Court has held that in order for a petitioner to be denied a constitutional right through the use of a dynamite instruction (or “supplemental charge”), the instruction must be coercive.

12013–2013

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ID § Idaho Code § 19-4903 (3) ID § Idaho Code § 19-4906 (3) ID § Idaho Code § 19-4907 (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

ID 10 (1988–2020) OR 2 (2023–2023)

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