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.
8 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2023 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. Avilagreen2 sentences2019See State v. Avila, 137 Idaho 410, 412 , 49 P.3d 1260, 1262 (Ct. App. 2002) (“Rule 404(b) is a relevance rule, and a Rule 404(b) objection is but a particular type of relevance objection. . . . 2019See State v. Avila, 137 Idaho 410, 412 , 49 P.3d 1260, 1262 (Ct. App. 2002) (“Rule 404(b) is a relevance rule, and a Rule 404(b) objection is but a particular type of relevance objection. . . . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Michael Eugene Kochgreen2 sentences2017State v. Koch, 157 Idaho 89, 102 , 334 P.3d 280, 293 (2014) (where Koch objected to testimony on nonresponsiveness, he did not preserve a relevance challenge to the testimony). 2017State v. Koch, 157 Idaho 89, 102 , 334 P.3d 280, 293 (2014) (where Koch objected to testimony on nonresponsiveness, he did not preserve a relevance challenge to the testimony). | 1 | 1 |
Estrada v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See State v. Wakefield, 145 Idaho 270, 272-73 , 178 P.3d 635, 637-39 (Ct.App.2007) (parties argued application of I.C. § 19-5304, but this Court analyzed and applied I.C. § 19-2601); see also Estrada v. State, 143 Idaho 558, 561 , 149 P.3d 833, 836 (2006) (Sixth Amendment critical stage analysis raised by neither party but addressed by the Court as precursor to arguments presented). 2010See State v. Wakefield, 145 Idaho 270, 272-73 , 178 P.3d 635, 637-39 (Ct.App.2007) (parties argued application of I.C. § 19-5304, but this Court analyzed and applied I.C. § 19-2601); see also Estrada v. State, 143 Idaho 558, 561 , 149 P.3d 833, 836 (2006) (Sixth Amendment critical stage analysis raised by neither party but addressed by the Court as precursor to arguments presented). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wakefieldgreen2 sentences2010See State v. Wakefield, 145 Idaho 270, 272-73 , 178 P.3d 635, 637-39 (Ct.App.2007) (parties argued application of I.C. § 19-5304, but this Court analyzed and applied I.C. § 19-2601); see also Estrada v. State, 143 Idaho 558, 561 , 149 P.3d 833, 836 (2006) (Sixth Amendment critical stage analysis raised by neither party but addressed by the Court as precursor to arguments presented). 2010See State v. Wakefield, 145 Idaho 270, 272-73 , 178 P.3d 635, 637-39 (Ct.App.2007) (parties argued application of I.C. § 19-5304, but this Court analyzed and applied I.C. § 19-2601); see also Estrada v. State, 143 Idaho 558, 561 , 149 P.3d 833, 836 (2006) (Sixth Amendment critical stage analysis raised by neither party but addressed by the Court as precursor to arguments presented). | 1 | 1 |
Grant v. Demskiegreen1 sentence2010See Grant v. Demskie, 75 F.Supp.2d 201, 211-212 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (collecting cases). [3] The majority refuses to address the applicability of Rule 412 stating: "Neither party has suggested that Rule 412 is applicable to Molen's proffered evidence — we are dealing only with a normal relevance analysis." However, this Court has not generally been reluctant, when the parties have missed the analytical boat or argued for application of the wrong law, to apply the correct analysis and law. | 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. Chacon
green
2 sentences2023Chacon, 168 Idaho 524, 532 , 484 P.3d 208, 216 . 2023Chacon, 168 Idaho 524, 532 , 484 P.3d 208, 216 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Thomas John Kralovec
green
2 sentences2020The lead opinion further distinguished the relevance analysis under I.R.E. 404(b) from the res gestae doctrine the Court rejected in State v. Kralovec, 161 Idaho 569 , 388 P.3d 583 (2017). 2020The lead opinion further distinguished the relevance analysis under I.R.E. 404(b) from the res gestae doctrine the Court rejected in State v. Kralovec, 161 Idaho 569 , 388 P.3d 583 (2017). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Grist
green
2 sentences2012Reliability is important to the relevance analysis because 404(b) evidence can only be relevant “if the jury can reasonably conclude that the act occurred and that the defendant was the actor.” Grist, 147 Idaho at 52 , 205 P.3d at 1188 . 2012Reliability is important to the relevance analysis because 404(b) evidence can only be relevant “if the jury can reasonably conclude that the act occurred and that the defendant was the actor.” Grist, 147 Idaho at 52 , 205 P.3d at 1188 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Tolman
green
2 sentences2011The Tolman Court did not limit its caution to the relevance inquiry, reminding trial courts that evidence of prior sexual misconduct “is still subject to the limitations imposed by I.R.E. 403.” Tolman, 121 Idaho at 905 , 828 P.2d at 1310 . 2011The Tolman Court did not limit its caution to the relevance inquiry, reminding trial courts that evidence of prior sexual misconduct “is still subject to the limitations imposed by I.R.E. 403.” Tolman, 121 Idaho at 905 , 828 P.2d at 1310 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2010Neither party has suggested that Rule 412 is applicable to Molen's proffered evidence—we are dealing only with a normal relevance analysis. [4] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) requires that a person subjected to custodial interrogation be advised of his or her right to remain silent and right to have counsel present during questioning. [5] Even a defendant's post- Miranda silence may be used to directly contradict, rebut or challenge the defendant's testimonial version of events. 2010Neither party has suggested that Rule 412 is applicable to Molen's proffered evidence—we are dealing only with a normal relevance analysis. [4] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) requires that a person subjected to custodial interrogation be advised of his or her right to remain silent and right to have counsel present during questioning. [5] Even a defendant's post- Miranda silence may be used to directly contradict, rebut or challenge the defendant's testimonial version of events. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Branzburg v. Hayes
green
2 sentences1977He accepts the relevance standard — he would quash a subpoena that requires a reporter to yield information "bearing only a remote and tenuous relationship to the subject of the investigation." 408 U.S. at 710 , n. [*], 92 S.Ct. at 2671 . 1977He accepts the relevance standard — he would quash a subpoena that requires a reporter to yield information "bearing only a remote and tenuous relationship to the subject of the investigation." 408 U.S. at 710 , n. [*], 92 S.Ct. at 2671 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.