10 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2023 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. Blakegreen2 sentences2017“The purpose of the invited error doctrine is to prevent a party who caused or played an important role in prompting a trial court to give or not give an instruction from later challenging that decision on appeal.” State v. Blake, 133 Idaho 237, 240 , 985 P.2d 117, 120 (1999). 2017“The purpose of the invited error doctrine is to prevent a party who caused or played an important role in prompting a trial court to give or not give an instruction from later challenging that decision on appeal.” State v. Blake, 133 Idaho 237, 240 , 985 P.2d 117, 120 (1999). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Mark Lankfordgreen2 sentences2023On appeal, Lankford argues: (1) that the district court abused its discretion when it allowed the State to question Lankford’s brother about statements Lankford made on a late- disclosed prison phone recording; (2) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction when the law of the case doctrine is applied to his case; and (3) that the district court erred in 2 In its briefing, the State denominates State v. Lankford, 162 Idaho 477, 484 , 399 P.3d 804, 811 (2017), as “Lankford III.” However, given the numerous appeals of both Mark and Bryan Lankford, “Mark Lankford III” is used to 2023On appeal, Lankford argues: (1) that the district court abused its discretion when it allowed the State to question Lankford’s brother about statements Lankford made on a late- disclosed prison phone recording; (2) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction when the law of the case doctrine is applied to his case; and (3) that the district court erred in 2 In its briefing, the State denominates State v. Lankford, 162 Idaho 477, 484 , 399 P.3d 804, 811 (2017), as “Lankford III.” However, given the numerous appeals of both Mark and Bryan Lankford, “Mark Lankford III” is used to | 1 | 1 |
Randall v. Ganzgreen2 sentences2023Lankford did not fail “to assert his assignments of error with particularity and to support his position with sufficient authority . . . .” Id. (citing Randall v. Ganz, 96 Idaho 785, 788 , 537 P.2d 65, 68 (1975)). 2023Lankford did not fail “to assert his assignments of error with particularity and to support his position with sufficient authority . . . .” Id. (citing Randall v. Ganz, 96 Idaho 785, 788 , 537 P.2d 65, 68 (1975)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Olsengreen2 sentences2023As to the inquiry concerning the general admissibility of late-disclosed evidence, this Court has said that “[w]here the question is one of late disclosure rather than failure to disclose, the inquiry 3 In the two instances where Lankford uses the term “nondisclosure” in his argument, the surrounding language and context reference late disclosure. 6 on appeal is whether the lateness of the disclosure so prejudiced the defendant’s preparation or presentation of his defense that he was prevented from receiving his constitutionally guaranteed fair trial.” State v. Byington, 132 Idaho 589, 592 , 9 2023As to the inquiry concerning the general admissibility of late-disclosed evidence, this Court has said that “[w]here the question is one of late disclosure rather than failure to disclose, the inquiry 3 In the two instances where Lankford uses the term “nondisclosure” in his argument, the surrounding language and context reference late disclosure. 6 on appeal is whether the lateness of the disclosure so prejudiced the defendant’s preparation or presentation of his defense that he was prevented from receiving his constitutionally guaranteed fair trial.” State v. Byington, 132 Idaho 589, 592 , 9 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Byingtongreen2 sentences2023As to the inquiry concerning the general admissibility of late-disclosed evidence, this Court has said that “[w]here the question is one of late disclosure rather than failure to disclose, the inquiry 3 In the two instances where Lankford uses the term “nondisclosure” in his argument, the surrounding language and context reference late disclosure. 6 on appeal is whether the lateness of the disclosure so prejudiced the defendant’s preparation or presentation of his defense that he was prevented from receiving his constitutionally guaranteed fair trial.” State v. Byington, 132 Idaho 589, 592 , 9 2023As to the inquiry concerning the general admissibility of late-disclosed evidence, this Court has said that “[w]here the question is one of late disclosure rather than failure to disclose, the inquiry 3 In the two instances where Lankford uses the term “nondisclosure” in his argument, the surrounding language and context reference late disclosure. 6 on appeal is whether the lateness of the disclosure so prejudiced the defendant’s preparation or presentation of his defense that he was prevented from receiving his constitutionally guaranteed fair trial.” State v. Byington, 132 Idaho 589, 592 , 9 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lankfordgreen2 sentences1995State v. (Bryan) Lankford, 113 Idaho 688, 701 , 747 P.2d 710, 723 (1987), vacated sub nom. on other grounds, Lankford v. Idaho, 486 U.S. 1051 , 108 S.Ct. 2815 , 100 L.Ed.2d *102 917 (1988). 1995State v. (Bryan) Lankford, 113 Idaho 688, 701 , 747 P.2d 710, 723 (1987), vacated sub nom. on other grounds, Lankford v. Idaho, 486 U.S. 1051 , 108 S.Ct. 2815 , 100 L.Ed.2d *102 917 (1988). | 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. Perry
green
2 sentences2017“Where a prosecutor attempts to secure a verdict on any factor other than the law as set forth in the jury instructions and the evidence admitted during trial, including reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, this impacts a defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial.” Id. 2016“Where a prosecutor attempts to secure a verdict on any factor other than the law as set forth in the jury instructions and the evidence admitted during trial, including reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, this impacts a defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial.” Id. | 3 | 2016–2017 |
State v. Lankford
green
2 sentences2009Id. 1995State v. (Mark) Lankford, 116 Idaho 860 , 781 P.2d 197 (1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1032 , 110 S.Ct. 3295 , 111 L.Ed.2d 803 (1990). | 2 | 1995–2009 |
Michael v. Zehm
green
1 sentence2023Lankford did not fail “to assert his assignments of error with particularity and to support his position with sufficient authority . . . .” Id. (citing Randall v. Ganz, 96 Idaho 785, 788 , 537 P.2d 65, 68 (1975)). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Danial Siebert v. Alabama
green
1 sentence1995State v. (Mark) Lankford, 116 Idaho 860 , 781 P.2d 197 (1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1032 , 110 S.Ct. 3295 , 111 L.Ed.2d 803 (1990). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Lankford
green
2 sentences1995Accordingly, we find no factual predicate for Lankford's claim." Id. 1995Accordingly, we find no factual predicate for Lankford’s claim.” Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Woratzeck v. Ricketts
green
2 sentences1995State v. (Bryan) Lankford, 113 Idaho 688, 701 , 747 P.2d 710, 723 (1987), vacated sub nom. on other grounds, Lankford v. Idaho, 486 U.S. 1051 , 108 S.Ct. 2815 , 100 L.Ed.2d *102 917 (1988). 1995State v. (Bryan) Lankford, 113 Idaho 688, 701 , 747 P.2d 710, 723 (1987), vacated sub nom. on other grounds, Lankford v. Idaho, 486 U.S. 1051 , 108 S.Ct. 2815 , 100 L.Ed.2d *102 917 (1988). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Beam
green
2 sentences1989Beam, 115 Idaho 208 , 766 P.2d 678 (1988), this Court upheld the requirement in I.C. § 19-2719(4) that [a]ny remedy available by post-conviction procedure, habeas corpus or any other provision of state law must be pursued according to the procedures set forth in [that] section and within the [42-day] time limitations of subsection (3)_” Lankford’s motion to reduce sentence was not filed within 42 days of the judgment imposing the death penalty and accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for reduction of sentence on the grounds that it was not timely filed. 1989Beam, 115 Idaho 208 , 766 P.2d 678 (1988), this Court upheld the requirement in I.C. § 19-2719(4) that [a]ny remedy available by post-conviction procedure, habeas corpus or any other provision of state law must be pursued according to the procedures set forth in [that] section and within the [42-day] time limitations of subsection (3)_” Lankford’s motion to reduce sentence was not filed within 42 days of the judgment imposing the death penalty and accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for reduction of sentence on the grounds that it was not timely filed. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Glickstein v. United States
green
2 sentences1989There is no protected right to commit perjury either under the fifth amendment, United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174 , 97 S.Ct. 1823 , 52 L.Ed.2d 231 (1977); Glickstein v. United States, 222 U.S. 139 , 32 S.Ct. 71 , 56 L.Ed. 128 (1911), or pursuant to I.C. § 19-1115. 1989There is no protected right to commit perjury either under the fifth amendment, United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174 , 97 S.Ct. 1823 , 52 L.Ed.2d 231 (1977); Glickstein v. United States, 222 U.S. 139 , 32 S.Ct. 71 , 56 L.Ed. 128 (1911), or pursuant to I.C. § 19-1115. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
United States v. Wong
green
2 sentences1989There is no protected right to commit perjury either under the fifth amendment, United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174 , 97 S.Ct. 1823 , 52 L.Ed.2d 231 (1977); Glickstein v. United States, 222 U.S. 139 , 32 S.Ct. 71 , 56 L.Ed. 128 (1911), or pursuant to I.C. § 19-1115. 1989There is no protected right to commit perjury either under the fifth amendment, United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174 , 97 S.Ct. 1823 , 52 L.Ed.2d 231 (1977); Glickstein v. United States, 222 U.S. 139 , 32 S.Ct. 71 , 56 L.Ed. 128 (1911), or pursuant to I.C. § 19-1115. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.