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.
7 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2019 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Foxgreen2 sentences2007Possession of a controlled substance in violation of I.C. § 37 — 2732(c)(1) requires a general intent — the knowledge that one is in possession of the substance whether it be marijuana, cocaine, or another controlled substance. 2 State v. Blake, 133 Idaho 237, 240 , 985 P.2d 117, 120 (1999); State v. Fox, 124 Idaho 924, 926 , 866 P.2d 181, 183 (1993). 2007Possession of a controlled substance in violation of I.C. § 37 — 2732(c)(1) requires a general intent — the knowledge that one is in possession of the substance whether it be marijuana, cocaine, or another controlled substance. 2 State v. Blake, 133 Idaho 237, 240 , 985 P.2d 117, 120 (1999); State v. Fox, 124 Idaho 924, 926 , 866 P.2d 181, 183 (1993). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Blakegreen2 sentences2007Possession of a controlled substance in violation of I.C. § 37 — 2732(c)(1) requires a general intent — the knowledge that one is in possession of the substance whether it be marijuana, cocaine, or another controlled substance. 2 State v. Blake, 133 Idaho 237, 240 , 985 P.2d 117, 120 (1999); State v. Fox, 124 Idaho 924, 926 , 866 P.2d 181, 183 (1993). 2007Possession of a controlled substance in violation of I.C. § 37 — 2732(c)(1) requires a general intent — the knowledge that one is in possession of the substance whether it be marijuana, cocaine, or another controlled substance. 2 State v. Blake, 133 Idaho 237, 240 , 985 P.2d 117, 120 (1999); State v. Fox, 124 Idaho 924, 926 , 866 P.2d 181, 183 (1993). | 3 | 3 |
North Carolina v. Alfordgreen1 sentence2019Evenson timely appeals. 1 The fourth telephone call was disconnected for an unknown reason and did not provide an automated prompt for Evenson’s grandmother to enter the verification code associated with the credit card on file. 2 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 (1970). 3 Additionally, Evenson entered an Alford plea to possession of a controlled substance in violation of Idaho Code § 37-2732 (c)(3), a misdemeanor. 3 II. | 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. Sarabia
green
2 sentences2015The issue in Sarabia was whether fixed term sentences for drug trafficking were mandatory minimum sentences under the 1978 constitutional amendment where a sentencing court was statutorily permitted to reduce or suspend a fixed term sentence upon the motion of the prosecuting attorney if the court found that the defendant had provided “substantial assistance in the identification, arrest and prosecution of any of [the person’s] accomplices, accessories, coconspirators, principals, sources of supply, or of any other person involved in dealing in a controlled substance in violation of the provis 2015The issue in Sarabia was whether fixed term sentences for drug trafficking were mandatory minimum sentences under the 1978 constitutional amendment where a sentencing court was statutorily permitted to reduce or suspend a fixed term sentence upon the motion of the prosecuting attorney if the court found that the defendant had provided “substantial assistance in the identification, arrest and prosecution of any of [the person’s] accomplices, accessories, coconspirators, principals, sources of supply, or of any other person involved in dealing in a controlled substance in violation of the provis | 2 | 1997–2015 |
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.