double jeopardy clause in Idaho

2004Berglund v. Potlatch Corp., 129 Idaho 752 , 932 P.2d 875 (1996); State v. Reichenberg, 128 Idaho 452 , 915 P.2d 14 (1996).

2004Berglund v. Potlatch Corp., 129 Idaho 752 , 932 P.2d 875 (1996); State v. Reichenberg, 128 Idaho 452 , 915 P.2d 14 (1996).

2004Berglund v. Potlatch Corp., 129 Idaho 752 , 932 P.2d 875 (1996); State v. Reichenberg, 128 Idaho 452 , 915 P.2d 14 (1996).

2004Berglund v. Potlatch Corp., 129 Idaho 752 , 932 P.2d 875 (1996); State v. Reichenberg, 128 Idaho 452 , 915 P.2d 14 (1996).

1993Grady, 495 U.S. at 515-16 , 110 S.Ct. at 2090 (citations omitted), quoting Vitale, 447 U.S. at 420 , 100 S.Ct. at 2267 . [7] *402 The United States Supreme Court fashioned a two-step double jeopardy analysis: (1) apply the Blockburger test; if the prosecution is not barred under Blockburger , then; (2) apply the Grady test.

1993Grady, 495 U.S. at 515-16 , 110 S.Ct. at 2090 (citations omitted), quoting Vitale, 447 U.S. at 420 , 100 S.Ct. at 2267 . [7] *402 The United States Supreme Court fashioned a two-step double jeopardy analysis: (1) apply the Blockburger test; if the prosecution is not barred under Blockburger , then; (2) apply the Grady test.

2002See State v. Sharp, 104 Idaho 691, 693 , 662 P.2d 1135, 1137 (1983) (providing identical analysis of double jeopardy claim under Idaho and U.S. Constitutions); State v. Reichenberg, 128 Idaho 452, 457-58 , 915 P.2d 14, 19-20 (1996) (declining to interpret double jeopardy provision of the Idaho Constitution differently than the Fifth Amendment in administrative license suspension proceeding); Berglund v. Potlatch Corp., 129 Idaho 752, 757 , 932 P.2d 875, 880 (1996) (holding that the Idaho double jeopardy clause was co-extensive with its federal counterpart in the context of a state civil forfei

2002See State v. Sharp, 104 Idaho 691, 693 , 662 P.2d 1135, 1137 (1983) (providing identical analysis of double jeopardy claim under Idaho and U.S. Constitutions); State v. Reichenberg, 128 Idaho 452, 457-58 , 915 P.2d 14, 19-20 (1996) (declining to interpret double jeopardy provision of the Idaho Constitution differently than the Fifth Amendment in administrative license suspension proceeding); Berglund v. Potlatch Corp., 129 Idaho 752, 757 , 932 P.2d 875, 880 (1996) (holding that the Idaho double jeopardy clause was co-extensive with its federal counterpart in the context of a state civil forfei

1994This Court has previously recognized that the double jeopardy clause, which was expanded by I.C. § 18-301, "protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and protects against multiple punishments for the same offense." State v. Pizzuto, 119 Idaho 742, 756 , 810 P.2d 680, 694 (1991).

1994This Court has previously recognized that the double jeopardy clause, which was expanded by I.C. § 18-301, "protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and protects against multiple punishments for the same offense." State v. Pizzuto, 119 Idaho 742, 756 , 810 P.2d 680, 694 (1991).

1980The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no person shall “ ‘be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb.’ It has long been understood that separate statutory crimes need not be identical — either in constituent elements or in actual proof — in order to be the same within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition.” 3 Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 164 , 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2225 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187, 193 (1977).

1980The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no person shall “ ‘be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb.’ It has long been understood that separate statutory crimes need not be identical — either in constituent elements or in actual proof — in order to be the same within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition.” 3 Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 164 , 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2225 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187, 193 (1977).

2016Sepulveda only raises a claim under the double jeopardy clause of the Idaho Constitution and the pleading theory, 4 Under the pleading theory, Sepulveda argues that “the intimidating charge is the means by which each attempt to violate the no contact order charges wei’e committed,” and thus “the intimidating a witness charge violated the Idaho Constitution’s protection against double jeopardy.” “Under Idaho’s pleading theory, whether one crime is a lesser included offense of another crime can be determined from the face of the record simply by reading the information charging each crime.” McKi

2016Sepulveda only raises a claim under the double jeopardy clause of the Idaho Constitution and the pleading theory, 4 Under the pleading theory, Sepulveda argues that “the intimidating charge is the means by which each attempt to violate the no contact order charges wei’e committed,” and thus “the intimidating a witness charge violated the Idaho Constitution’s protection against double jeopardy.” “Under Idaho’s pleading theory, whether one crime is a lesser included offense of another crime can be determined from the face of the record simply by reading the information charging each crime.” McKi

2012Hudson, 522 U.S. at 101-02, 118 S.Ct. at 494-95 , 139 L.Ed.2d at 460-61 .

2012Hudson, 522 U.S. at 101-02, 118 S.Ct. at 494-95 , 139 L.Ed.2d at 460-61 .

2015The next statement by the Major Court was, “This inquiry requires consideration of the circumstances of the conduct, see State v. McCormick, 100 Idaho 111, 115-16 , 594 P.2d 149, 153-54 (1979)....” 111 Idaho at 414 , 725 P.2d at 119 .

2015The next statement by the Major Court was, “This inquiry requires consideration of the circumstances of the conduct, see State v. McCormick, 100 Idaho 111, 115-16 , 594 P.2d 149, 153-54 (1979)....” 111 Idaho at 414 , 725 P.2d at 119 .

2015The next statement by the Major Court was, “This inquiry requires consideration of the circumstances of the conduct, see State v. McCormick, 100 Idaho 111, 115-16 , 594 P.2d 149, 153-54 (1979)....” 111 Idaho at 414 , 725 P.2d at 119 .

2015The next statement by the Major Court was, “This inquiry requires consideration of the circumstances of the conduct, see State v. McCormick, 100 Idaho 111, 115-16 , 594 P.2d 149, 153-54 (1979)....” 111 Idaho at 414 , 725 P.2d at 119 .

2013In State v. Jensen, 138 Idaho 941, 944 , 71 P.3d 1088, 1091 (Ct. App. 2003), we stated that any violation of double jeopardy protection occurred upon entry of the judgment of conviction and sentences, and appeal should have been taken at that time.

2013In State v. Jensen, 138 Idaho 941, 944 , 71 P.3d 1088, 1091 (Ct. App. 2003), we stated that any violation of double jeopardy protection occurred upon entry of the judgment of conviction and sentences, and appeal should have been taken at that time.

2005Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 688 , 69 S.Ct. 834, 837 , 93 L.Ed. 974, 977 (1949), reh’g denied, 337 U.S. 921 , 69 S.Ct. 1152 , 93 L.Ed. 1730 (1949).

2005Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 688 , 69 S.Ct. 834, 837 , 93 L.Ed. 974, 977 (1949), reh’g denied, 337 U.S. 921 , 69 S.Ct. 1152 , 93 L.Ed. 1730 (1949).

2025See Thomas v. State, 145 Idaho 765, 770 , 185 P.3d 921, 926 (Ct. App. 2008) (explaining that where the alleged deficiency is counsel’s failure to file a motion, a conclusion that the motion, if pursued, would not have been granted by the trial court, is generally determinative of both prongs of the Strickland test).

2025See Thomas v. State, 145 Idaho 765, 770 , 185 P.3d 921, 926 (Ct. App. 2008) (explaining that where the alleged deficiency is counsel’s failure to file a motion, a conclusion that the motion, if pursued, would not have been granted by the trial court, is generally determinative of both prongs of the Strickland test).

2020State v. Zichko, 129 Idaho 257, 263 , 923 P.2d 966, 970 (1996). 2

2015Finally, the Major Court stated the inquiry into whether criminal conduct should be divided or aggregated depends upon “consideration of the ‘intent and objective of the actor.’ In re Ward, 64 Cal.2d 672 , 51 Cal. Rptr. 272, 275 , 414 P.2d 400, 403 (1966)....” 111 Idaho at 414 , 725 P.2d at 119 .

2015Finally, the Major Court stated the inquiry into whether criminal conduct should be divided or aggregated depends upon “consideration of the ‘intent and objective of the actor.’ In re Ward, 64 Cal.2d 672 , 51 Cal. Rptr. 272, 275 , 414 P.2d 400, 403 (1966)....” 111 Idaho at 414 , 725 P.2d at 119 .

2015For example, in State v. Moad, 156 Idaho 654, 656-58 , 330 P.3d 400, 403-04 (Ct. App. 2014), we acknowledged that there existed a variety of procedural avenues to raise an issue in the district court, but nonetheless held that we could review for fundamental error: The State contends that this Court should not address Moad’s claims of fundamental error because he could raise this alleged double jeopardy violation in the district court by a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 35. . . .

2015For example, in State v. Moad, 156 Idaho 654, 656-58 , 330 P.3d 400, 403-04 (Ct. App. 2014), we acknowledged that there existed a variety of procedural avenues to raise an issue in the district court, but nonetheless held that we could review for fundamental error: The State contends that this Court should not address Moad’s claims of fundamental error because he could raise this alleged double jeopardy violation in the district court by a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 35. . . .

2013As this Court determined in State v. Corbus, 151 Idaho 368, 374 , 256 P.3d 776, 782 (Ct.App.2011), a review of Idaho Supreme Court precedent demonstrates that we apply the Blockburger test to determine whether there has been a double jeopardy violation under the United States Constitution.

2013As this Court determined in State v. Corbus, 151 Idaho 368, 374 , 256 P.3d 776, 782 (Ct.App.2011), a review of Idaho Supreme Court precedent demonstrates that we apply the Blockburger test to determine whether there has been a double jeopardy violation under the United States Constitution.