extrinsic force standard (Idaho) · Go Syfert
← Idaho issues

extrinsic force standard in Idaho

7 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2024 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Russell G. Jonesgreen
idaho · 2013 · cited in 4 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2013–2024
2 sentences

2024The Court adopted the extrinsic force standard, which defines force as “anything beyond that which is inherent or incidental to the sexual act itself.” Id. (quoting State v. Jones, 154 Idaho 412, 421 , 299 P.3d 219, 228 (2013)).

2024The Court adopted the extrinsic force standard, which defines force as “anything beyond that which is inherent or incidental to the sexual act itself.” Id. (quoting State v. Jones, 154 Idaho 412, 421 , 299 P.3d 219, 228 (2013)).

34
Sabol v. Commonwealthgreen
vactapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013The extrinsic force standard is the traditional view and “is still the most commonly adopted.” See also Stokes v. State, 648 So.2d 1179 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); State v. Parish, 405 So.2d 1080 (La.1981); State v. Soderquist, 63 Wash.App. 144 , 816 P.2d 1264, 1266 (1991); Martin v. State, 113 Md.App. 190 , 686 A.2d 1130, 1155 (Md.Spec.App.1996); State v. Kaufman, 187 Ohio App.3d 50 , 931 N.E.2d 143, 158 (2010); Sabol v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 9 , 553 S.E.2d 533, 536 (2001).

2013The extrinsic force standard is the traditional view and “is still the most commonly adopted.” See also Stokes v. State, 648 So.2d 1179 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); State v. Parish, 405 So.2d 1080 (La.1981); State v. Soderquist, 63 Wash.App. 144 , 816 P.2d 1264, 1266 (1991); Martin v. State, 113 Md.App. 190 , 686 A.2d 1130, 1155 (Md.Spec.App.1996); State v. Kaufman, 187 Ohio App.3d 50 , 931 N.E.2d 143, 158 (2010); Sabol v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 9 , 553 S.E.2d 533, 536 (2001).

11
Martin v. Stategreen
mdctspecapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013The extrinsic force standard is the traditional view and “is still the most commonly adopted.” See also Stokes v. State, 648 So.2d 1179 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); State v. Parish, 405 So.2d 1080 (La.1981); State v. Soderquist, 63 Wash.App. 144 , 816 P.2d 1264, 1266 (1991); Martin v. State, 113 Md.App. 190 , 686 A.2d 1130, 1155 (Md.Spec.App.1996); State v. Kaufman, 187 Ohio App.3d 50 , 931 N.E.2d 143, 158 (2010); Sabol v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 9 , 553 S.E.2d 533, 536 (2001).

2013The extrinsic force standard is the traditional view and “is still the most commonly adopted.” See also Stokes v. State, 648 So.2d 1179 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); State v. Parish, 405 So.2d 1080 (La.1981); State v. Soderquist, 63 Wash.App. 144 , 816 P.2d 1264, 1266 (1991); Martin v. State, 113 Md.App. 190 , 686 A.2d 1130, 1155 (Md.Spec.App.1996); State v. Kaufman, 187 Ohio App.3d 50 , 931 N.E.2d 143, 158 (2010); Sabol v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 9 , 553 S.E.2d 533, 536 (2001).

11
State v. Soderquistgreen
washctapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013The extrinsic force standard is the traditional view and “is still the most commonly adopted.” See also Stokes v. State, 648 So.2d 1179 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); State v. Parish, 405 So.2d 1080 (La.1981); State v. Soderquist, 63 Wash.App. 144 , 816 P.2d 1264, 1266 (1991); Martin v. State, 113 Md.App. 190 , 686 A.2d 1130, 1155 (Md.Spec.App.1996); State v. Kaufman, 187 Ohio App.3d 50 , 931 N.E.2d 143, 158 (2010); Sabol v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 9 , 553 S.E.2d 533, 536 (2001).

2013The extrinsic force standard is the traditional view and “is still the most commonly adopted.” See also Stokes v. State, 648 So.2d 1179 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); State v. Parish, 405 So.2d 1080 (La.1981); State v. Soderquist, 63 Wash.App. 144 , 816 P.2d 1264, 1266 (1991); Martin v. State, 113 Md.App. 190 , 686 A.2d 1130, 1155 (Md.Spec.App.1996); State v. Kaufman, 187 Ohio App.3d 50 , 931 N.E.2d 143, 158 (2010); Sabol v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 9 , 553 S.E.2d 533, 536 (2001).

11
State v. Kaufmangreen
ohioctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013The extrinsic force standard is the traditional view and “is still the most commonly adopted.” See also Stokes v. State, 648 So.2d 1179 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); State v. Parish, 405 So.2d 1080 (La.1981); State v. Soderquist, 63 Wash.App. 144 , 816 P.2d 1264, 1266 (1991); Martin v. State, 113 Md.App. 190 , 686 A.2d 1130, 1155 (Md.Spec.App.1996); State v. Kaufman, 187 Ohio App.3d 50 , 931 N.E.2d 143, 158 (2010); Sabol v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 9 , 553 S.E.2d 533, 536 (2001).

2013The extrinsic force standard is the traditional view and “is still the most commonly adopted.” See also Stokes v. State, 648 So.2d 1179 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); State v. Parish, 405 So.2d 1080 (La.1981); State v. Soderquist, 63 Wash.App. 144 , 816 P.2d 1264, 1266 (1991); Martin v. State, 113 Md.App. 190 , 686 A.2d 1130, 1155 (Md.Spec.App.1996); State v. Kaufman, 187 Ohio App.3d 50 , 931 N.E.2d 143, 158 (2010); Sabol v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 9 , 553 S.E.2d 533, 536 (2001).

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 (6)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Jesse Elias green
idaho · 2014
2 sentences

2024The Court adopted the extrinsic force standard, which defines force as “anything beyond that which is inherent or incidental to the sexual act itself.” Id. (quoting State v. Jones, 154 Idaho 412, 421 , 299 P.3d 219, 228 (2013)).

2015Id. at 517 , 337 P.3d at 676 .

22015–2024
Stokes v. State green
alacrimapp · 1994
2 sentences

2013The extrinsic force standard is the traditional view and “is still the most commonly adopted.” See also Stokes v. State, 648 So.2d 1179 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); State v. Parish, 405 So.2d 1080 (La.1981); State v. Soderquist, 63 Wash.App. 144 , 816 P.2d 1264, 1266 (1991); Martin v. State, 113 Md.App. 190 , 686 A.2d 1130, 1155 (Md.Spec.App.1996); State v. Kaufman, 187 Ohio App.3d 50 , 931 N.E.2d 143, 158 (2010); Sabol v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 9 , 553 S.E.2d 533, 536 (2001).

2013The extrinsic force standard is the traditional view and “is still the most commonly adopted.” See also Stokes v. State, 648 So.2d 1179 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); State v. Parish, 405 So.2d 1080 (La.1981); State v. Soderquist, 63 Wash.App. 144 , 816 P.2d 1264, 1266 (1991); Martin v. State, 113 Md.App. 190 , 686 A.2d 1130, 1155 (Md.Spec.App.1996); State v. Kaufman, 187 Ohio App.3d 50 , 931 N.E.2d 143, 158 (2010); Sabol v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 9 , 553 S.E.2d 533, 536 (2001).

12013–2013
State v. Parish green
la · 1981
2 sentences

2013The extrinsic force standard is the traditional view and “is still the most commonly adopted.” See also Stokes v. State, 648 So.2d 1179 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); State v. Parish, 405 So.2d 1080 (La.1981); State v. Soderquist, 63 Wash.App. 144 , 816 P.2d 1264, 1266 (1991); Martin v. State, 113 Md.App. 190 , 686 A.2d 1130, 1155 (Md.Spec.App.1996); State v. Kaufman, 187 Ohio App.3d 50 , 931 N.E.2d 143, 158 (2010); Sabol v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 9 , 553 S.E.2d 533, 536 (2001).

2013The extrinsic force standard is the traditional view and “is still the most commonly adopted.” See also Stokes v. State, 648 So.2d 1179 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); State v. Parish, 405 So.2d 1080 (La.1981); State v. Soderquist, 63 Wash.App. 144 , 816 P.2d 1264, 1266 (1991); Martin v. State, 113 Md.App. 190 , 686 A.2d 1130, 1155 (Md.Spec.App.1996); State v. Kaufman, 187 Ohio App.3d 50 , 931 N.E.2d 143, 158 (2010); Sabol v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 9 , 553 S.E.2d 533, 536 (2001).

12013–2013
State v. Jacques green
ri · 1988
2 sentences

2011In State v. Jacques, 536 A.2d 535 (R.I. 1988), the Court interpreted the state’s sexual assault statute which provided that “a person is guilty of first degree sexual assault if he or she engages in sexual penetration with another person” and any of several circumstances existed, which in this case was that the defendant used “force or coercion.” Id. at 537 (quoting R.I.

2011In Jacques, 536 A.2d at 538 , after adopting the extrinsic force standard as we discussed above, the Rhode Island Supreme Court applied the standard to the facts of the case.

12011–2011
State v. McKnight green
washctapp · 1989
2 sentences

2011In McKnight, 774 P.2d at 535 , the facts of which are described above, the Court of Appeals was called on to interpret the state’s second degree rape statute which provides that a person is guilty of the crime when the person engages in sexual intercourse with another person by, among other circumstances, “forcible compulsion.” Forcible compulsion was defined, under a statute in effect at the time, as “physical force which overcomes resistance.” Id. at 533 .

2011In McKnight, 774 P.2d at 535 , the facts of which are described above, the Court of Appeals was called on to interpret the state’s second degree rape statute which provides that a person is guilty of the crime when the person engages in sexual intercourse with another person by, among other circumstances, “forcible compulsion.” Forcible compulsion was defined, under a statute in effect at the time, as “physical force which overcomes resistance.” Id. at 533 .

12011–2011
Commonwealth v. Berkowitz green
pa · 1994
2 sentences

2011In Commonwealth v. Berkowitz, 641 A.2d 1161 (Pa. 1994), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court applied the standard, holding that the defendant had not committed rape because the victim failed to show that the defendant had used the requisite force or threat of force to compel her to have intercourse. 5 Id. at 1166 .

2011In Commonwealth v. Berkowitz, 641 A.2d 1161 (Pa. 1994), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court applied the standard, holding that the defendant had not committed rape because the victim failed to show that the defendant had used the requisite force or threat of force to compel her to have intercourse. 5 Id. at 1166 .

12011–2011

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ID § Idaho Code § 18-6101 (5)

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 7 (2011–2024) AK 2 (2019–2019)

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