line inquiry in Idaho

7 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1904–2019 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.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Jay Alton Roachgreen idahoctapp · 2014 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 2 sentences 2019Under these circumstances, we will not assume, as the State’s argument asks us to do, that Hollon could not have presented a defense through cross-examination of Officer Wendler. 4 See State v. Roach, 157 Idaho 551, 555 , 337 P.3d 1280, 1284 (Ct. App. 2014) (“The physiological variables testified to by [Defendant’s expert] describe ways in which the result of a breath sample may vary depending on the individual.”). 2019Under these circumstances, we will not assume, as the State’s argument asks us to do, that Hollon could not have presented a defense through cross-examination of Officer Wendler. 4 See State v. Roach, 157 Idaho 551, 555 , 337 P.3d 1280, 1284 (Ct. App. 2014) (“The physiological variables testified to by [Defendant’s expert] describe ways in which the result of a breath sample may vary depending on the individual.”).	1	1
State v. Creagreen idaho · 1991 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000State v. Faught, 127 Idaho 873, 876 , 908 P.2d 566, 569 (1995); State v. Gleason, 123 Idaho 62, 65 , 844 P.2d 691, 694 (1992); State v. Crea, 119 Idaho 352, 355-56 , 806 P.2d 445, 448-49 (1991). 2000State v. Faught, 127 Idaho 873, 876 , 908 P.2d 566, 569 (1995); State v. Gleason, 123 Idaho 62, 65 , 844 P.2d 691, 694 (1992); State v. Crea, 119 Idaho 352, 355-56 , 806 P.2d 445, 448-49 (1991).	1	1
State v. Gleasongreen idaho · 1992 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000State v. Faught, 127 Idaho 873, 876 , 908 P.2d 566, 569 (1995); State v. Gleason, 123 Idaho 62, 65 , 844 P.2d 691, 694 (1992); State v. Crea, 119 Idaho 352, 355-56 , 806 P.2d 445, 448-49 (1991). 2000State v. Faught, 127 Idaho 873, 876 , 908 P.2d 566, 569 (1995); State v. Gleason, 123 Idaho 62, 65 , 844 P.2d 691, 694 (1992); State v. Crea, 119 Idaho 352, 355-56 , 806 P.2d 445, 448-49 (1991).	1	1
State v. Faughtgreen idaho · 1995 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000State v. Faught, 127 Idaho 873, 876 , 908 P.2d 566, 569 (1995); State v. Gleason, 123 Idaho 62, 65 , 844 P.2d 691, 694 (1992); State v. Crea, 119 Idaho 352, 355-56 , 806 P.2d 445, 448-49 (1991). 2000State v. Faught, 127 Idaho 873, 876 , 908 P.2d 566, 569 (1995); State v. Gleason, 123 Idaho 62, 65 , 844 P.2d 691, 694 (1992); State v. Crea, 119 Idaho 352, 355-56 , 806 P.2d 445, 448-49 (1991).	1	1
State v. Myersgreen idahoctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999See Myers, supra, 118 Idaho at 612 , 798 P.2d at 457 . 6 .In order to be testimonial, an accused’s communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information. 1999See Myers, supra, 118 Idaho at 612 , 798 P.2d at 457 . 6 .In order to be testimonial, an accused’s communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information.	1	1
Schaffer v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1989 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 1 sentence 1995As the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals observed in Schaffer v. State, 777 S.W.2d 111, 114 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), “[Wjhere there is an inescapable conclusion that a piece of evidence is being offered to prove statements made outside the courtroom, a party may not circumvent the hearsay prohibition through artful questioning designed to elicit hearsay indirectly.” Therefore, the district court was correct in ultimately sustaining Agundis’s objections to the prosecutor’s line of inquiry. 6 Agundis complains, however, not about the trial court’s ruling on his objections but about the prosecutor’s co	1	1
Begley v. Municipality of Anchoragegreen alaskactapp · 1985 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992People v. Janke, 720 P.2d 613 (Colo.App.1986) (Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying defendant’s motion for a continuance where “defense counsel had ample time and opportunity to prepare adequately”); Begley v. Municipality of Anchorage, 711 P.2d 540, 543 (Alaska App.1985) (“Even if [defendant] had made a showing that the ... testimony would be relevant to her defense ... [the trial court] could have correctly concluded that [defendant] had not been diligent in pursuing this line of defense”); Clark v. State, 704 P.2d 799 (Alaska App.1985); People v. Cornelius, 41 Colo.App. 182 , 585 1992People v. Janke, 720 P.2d 613 (Colo.App.1986) (Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying defendant's motion for a continuance where "defense counsel had ample time and opportunity to prepare adequately"); Begley v. Municipality of Anchorage, 711 P.2d 540, 543 (Alaska App. 1985) ("Even if [defendant] had made a showing that the ... testimony would be relevant to her defense ... [the trial court] could have correctly concluded that [defendant] had not been diligent in pursuing this line of defense"); Clark v. State, 704 P.2d 799 (Alaska App.1985); People v. Cornelius, 41 Colo.App. 182 , 58	1	1
Hammond v. Justice's Courtgreen calctapp · 1918 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977 1 sentence 1977This same reasoning as to the facts here in question has been upheld by the appellate courts of several states which have been called upon to decide this question. *421 See: Rose v. Crawford, 37 Cal.App. 664, 667 , 174 P. 69, 70 (1918); State Compensation Ins.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (14)

Case	Cited	Years
Elias-Cruz v. Idaho Department of Transportation green idaho · 2012 2 sentences 2019Based on this disclosure, Hollon initially inquired of Officer Arrington, the arresting officer and the State’s first witness, about the absorption of alcohol. 3 The prosecutor objected, citing Tomlinson and Elias-Cruz v. Idaho Dep’t of Transportation, 153 Idaho 200 , 280 P.3d 703 (2012), and argued that, notwithstanding the State’s expert disclosure, she “no longer believe[d] such expert testimony is appropriate.” Because the district court understandably sustained the objection in light of then-existing case law, Hollon was foreclosed from pursuing the line of inquiry now permitted under Aus 2019Based on this disclosure, Hollon initially inquired of Officer Arrington, the arresting officer and the State’s first witness, about the absorption of alcohol. 3 The prosecutor objected, citing Tomlinson and Elias-Cruz v. Idaho Dep’t of Transportation, 153 Idaho 200 , 280 P.3d 703 (2012), and argued that, notwithstanding the State’s expert disclosure, she “no longer believe[d] such expert testimony is appropriate.” Because the district court understandably sustained the objection in light of then-existing case law, Hollon was foreclosed from pursuing the line of inquiry now permitted under Aus	1	2019–2019
People v. Janke green coloctapp · 1986 2 sentences 1992People v. Janke, 720 P.2d 613 (Colo.App.1986) (Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying defendant’s motion for a continuance where “defense counsel had ample time and opportunity to prepare adequately”); Begley v. Municipality of Anchorage, 711 P.2d 540, 543 (Alaska App.1985) (“Even if [defendant] had made a showing that the ... testimony would be relevant to her defense ... [the trial court] could have correctly concluded that [defendant] had not been diligent in pursuing this line of defense”); Clark v. State, 704 P.2d 799 (Alaska App.1985); People v. Cornelius, 41 Colo.App. 182 , 585 1992People v. Janke, 720 P.2d 613 (Colo.App.1986) (Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying defendant's motion for a continuance where "defense counsel had ample time and opportunity to prepare adequately"); Begley v. Municipality of Anchorage, 711 P.2d 540, 543 (Alaska App. 1985) ("Even if [defendant] had made a showing that the ... testimony would be relevant to her defense ... [the trial court] could have correctly concluded that [defendant] had not been diligent in pursuing this line of defense"); Clark v. State, 704 P.2d 799 (Alaska App.1985); People v. Cornelius, 41 Colo.App. 182 , 58	1	1992–1992
Clark v. State green alaskactapp · 1985 2 sentences 1992People v. Janke, 720 P.2d 613 (Colo.App.1986) (Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying defendant’s motion for a continuance where “defense counsel had ample time and opportunity to prepare adequately”); Begley v. Municipality of Anchorage, 711 P.2d 540, 543 (Alaska App.1985) (“Even if [defendant] had made a showing that the ... testimony would be relevant to her defense ... [the trial court] could have correctly concluded that [defendant] had not been diligent in pursuing this line of defense”); Clark v. State, 704 P.2d 799 (Alaska App.1985); People v. Cornelius, 41 Colo.App. 182 , 585 1992People v. Janke, 720 P.2d 613 (Colo.App.1986) (Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying defendant's motion for a continuance where "defense counsel had ample time and opportunity to prepare adequately"); Begley v. Municipality of Anchorage, 711 P.2d 540, 543 (Alaska App. 1985) ("Even if [defendant] had made a showing that the ... testimony would be relevant to her defense ... [the trial court] could have correctly concluded that [defendant] had not been diligent in pursuing this line of defense"); Clark v. State, 704 P.2d 799 (Alaska App.1985); People v. Cornelius, 41 Colo.App. 182 , 58	1	1992–1992
People v. Cornelius green coloctapp · 1978 2 sentences 1992People v. Janke, 720 P.2d 613 (Colo.App.1986) (Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying defendant’s motion for a continuance where “defense counsel had ample time and opportunity to prepare adequately”); Begley v. Municipality of Anchorage, 711 P.2d 540, 543 (Alaska App.1985) (“Even if [defendant] had made a showing that the ... testimony would be relevant to her defense ... [the trial court] could have correctly concluded that [defendant] had not been diligent in pursuing this line of defense”); Clark v. State, 704 P.2d 799 (Alaska App.1985); People v. Cornelius, 41 Colo.App. 182 , 585 1992People v. Janke, 720 P.2d 613 (Colo.App.1986) (Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying defendant’s motion for a continuance where “defense counsel had ample time and opportunity to prepare adequately”); Begley v. Municipality of Anchorage, 711 P.2d 540, 543 (Alaska App.1985) (“Even if [defendant] had made a showing that the ... testimony would be relevant to her defense ... [the trial court] could have correctly concluded that [defendant] had not been diligent in pursuing this line of defense”); Clark v. State, 704 P.2d 799 (Alaska App.1985); People v. Cornelius, 41 Colo.App. 182 , 585	1	1992–1992
State v. Maxwell green ariz · 1968 2 sentences 1992People v. Janke, 720 P.2d 613 (Colo.App.1986) (Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying defendant’s motion for a continuance where “defense counsel had ample time and opportunity to prepare adequately”); Begley v. Municipality of Anchorage, 711 P.2d 540, 543 (Alaska App.1985) (“Even if [defendant] had made a showing that the ... testimony would be relevant to her defense ... [the trial court] could have correctly concluded that [defendant] had not been diligent in pursuing this line of defense”); Clark v. State, 704 P.2d 799 (Alaska App.1985); People v. Cornelius, 41 Colo.App. 182 , 585 1992People v. Janke, 720 P.2d 613 (Colo.App.1986) (Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying defendant’s motion for a continuance where “defense counsel had ample time and opportunity to prepare adequately”); Begley v. Municipality of Anchorage, 711 P.2d 540, 543 (Alaska App.1985) (“Even if [defendant] had made a showing that the ... testimony would be relevant to her defense ... [the trial court] could have correctly concluded that [defendant] had not been diligent in pursuing this line of defense”); Clark v. State, 704 P.2d 799 (Alaska App.1985); People v. Cornelius, 41 Colo.App. 182 , 585	1	1992–1992
Hunt v. Blackburn green · 1888 2 sentences 1977When Mrs. Blackburn entered upon a line of defense which involved what transpired between herself and Mr. Weatherford, and respecting which she testified, she waived her right to object to his giving his own account of the matter.” 128 U.S. at 470-471 , 9 S.Ct. at 127 . 1977When Mrs. Blackburn entered upon a line of defense which involved what transpired between herself and Mr. Weatherford, and respecting which she testified, she waived her right to object to his giving his own account of the matter.” 128 U.S. at 470-471 , 9 S.Ct. at 127 .	1	1977–1977
Rose v. Crawford green · 1918 1 sentence 1977This same reasoning as to the facts here in question has been upheld by the appellate courts of several states which have been called upon to decide this question. *421 See: Rose v. Crawford, 37 Cal.App. 664, 667 , 174 P. 69, 70 (1918); State Compensation Ins.	1	1977–1977
Labadie v. Pellot neutral prsupreme · 1907 1 sentence 1904Such an inquiry is only allowed for the purpose of honestly discrediting the witness, and there is reason to believe that it will tend to the ends of justice.” In support of this rule this case cites State v. Pfefferle, 36 Kan. 90 , 12 Pac. 406 ; State v. Probasco, 46 Kan. 310 , 26 Pac. 749 ; State v. Wells, 54 Kan. 161 , 37 Pac. 1005 ; State v. Park, 57 Kan. 431 , 46 Pac. 713 ; Hanoff v. State, 37 Ohio St. 178 , 41 Am.	1	1904–1904
Truyol v. Vázquez neutral prsupreme · 1934 1 sentence 1904Such an inquiry is only allowed for the purpose of honestly discrediting the witness, and there is reason to believe that it will tend to the ends of justice.” In support of this rule this case cites State v. Pfefferle, 36 Kan. 90 , 12 Pac. 406 ; State v. Probasco, 46 Kan. 310 , 26 Pac. 749 ; State v. Wells, 54 Kan. 161 , 37 Pac. 1005 ; State v. Park, 57 Kan. 431 , 46 Pac. 713 ; Hanoff v. State, 37 Ohio St. 178 , 41 Am.	1	1904–1904
State v. Pfefferle neutral kan · 1886 1 sentence 1904Such an inquiry is only allowed for the purpose of honestly discrediting the witness, and there is reason to believe that it will tend to the ends of justice.” In support of this rule this case cites State v. Pfefferle, 36 Kan. 90 , 12 Pac. 406 ; State v. Probasco, 46 Kan. 310 , 26 Pac. 749 ; State v. Wells, 54 Kan. 161 , 37 Pac. 1005 ; State v. Park, 57 Kan. 431 , 46 Pac. 713 ; Hanoff v. State, 37 Ohio St. 178 , 41 Am.	1	1904–1904
State v. Probasco neutral kan · 1891 1 sentence 1904Such an inquiry is only allowed for the purpose of honestly discrediting the witness, and there is reason to believe that it will tend to the ends of justice.” In support of this rule this case cites State v. Pfefferle, 36 Kan. 90 , 12 Pac. 406 ; State v. Probasco, 46 Kan. 310 , 26 Pac. 749 ; State v. Wells, 54 Kan. 161 , 37 Pac. 1005 ; State v. Park, 57 Kan. 431 , 46 Pac. 713 ; Hanoff v. State, 37 Ohio St. 178 , 41 Am.	1	1904–1904
State v. Wells green kan · 1894 2 sentences 1904This line of inquiry became important because of the contention that the prosecution was prompted by the malice of this witness resulting from a failure to extort money, and some of the circumstances surrounding the ease seem to justify a full cross-examination as to her past conduct and character.” The same court, in State v. Greenburg, 54 Kan. 161 , 53 Pac. 61 , lays down the rule in the syllabus as follows: “For the purpose of proving the character and credit of a witness, he may be cross-examined as to specific facts tending to disgrace or degrade him, although collateral to the main issue 1904Such an inquiry is only allowed for the purpose of honestly discrediting the witness, and there is reason to believe that it will tend to the ends of justice.” In support of this rule this case cites State v. Pfefferle, 36 Kan. 90 , 12 Pac. 406 ; State v. Probasco, 46 Kan. 310 , 26 Pac. 749 ; State v. Wells, 54 Kan. 161 , 37 Pac. 1005 ; State v. Park, 57 Kan. 431 , 46 Pac. 713 ; Hanoff v. State, 37 Ohio St. 178 , 41 Am.	1	1904–1904
State v. Park neutral kan · 1896 1 sentence 1904Such an inquiry is only allowed for the purpose of honestly discrediting the witness, and there is reason to believe that it will tend to the ends of justice.” In support of this rule this case cites State v. Pfefferle, 36 Kan. 90 , 12 Pac. 406 ; State v. Probasco, 46 Kan. 310 , 26 Pac. 749 ; State v. Wells, 54 Kan. 161 , 37 Pac. 1005 ; State v. Park, 57 Kan. 431 , 46 Pac. 713 ; Hanoff v. State, 37 Ohio St. 178 , 41 Am.	1	1904–1904
State v. Greenburg neutral kan · 1898 1 sentence 1904This line of inquiry became important because of the contention that the prosecution was prompted by the malice of this witness resulting from a failure to extort money, and some of the circumstances surrounding the ease seem to justify a full cross-examination as to her past conduct and character.” The same court, in State v. Greenburg, 54 Kan. 161 , 53 Pac. 61 , lays down the rule in the syllabus as follows: “For the purpose of proving the character and credit of a witness, he may be cross-examined as to specific facts tending to disgrace or degrade him, although collateral to the main issue	1	1904–1904

Where else courts name it

NY 106 (1890–2025) IL 101 (1897–2026) CA 86 (1880–2024) TN 51 (1926–2025) PA 42 (1896–2025) GA 42 (1909–2025) CT 37 (1974–2025) MA 36 (1920–2025) TX 31 (1908–2025) AL 31 (1883–2026) MO 30 (1881–2023) IN 28 (1910–2020) MD 26 (1949–2017) MI 24 (1913–2024) OR 19 (1890–2025) OH 19 (1900–2026) NJ 17 (1966–2022) FL 17 (1951–2025) MS 15 (1959–2014) NE 14 (1976–2018) WI 13 (1926–2024) NC 13 (1961–2017) CO 13 (1922–2025) DC 12 (1978–2023) RI 12 (1964–2016) VT 12 (1881–2019) VA 11 (1995–2026) KS 11 (1895–2026) NM 11 (1958–2020) LA 10 (1912–2019) OK 9 (1927–2019) AZ 8 (1997–2026) WA 8 (1899–2023) HI 7 (1990–2023) ID 7 (1904–2019) IA 7 (1903–2016) KY 6 (1931–2022) UT 5 (1983–2019) NH 5 (1991–2016) WV 5 (1980–1990) DE 5 (1939–2025) ME 4 (2004–2025) SC 4 (2004–2008) MN 4 (1957–2009) MT 3 (1929–1997) SD 3 (1997–2007) GU 2 (2023–2023) AK 2 (1971–1985) AR 2 (1938–1995)

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