7 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2022 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. Cardgreen2 sentences2022Idaho Code section 18-207 “expressly allows admission of expert evidence on the issues of mens rea or any state of mind which is an element of the crime.” State v. Samuel, 165 Idaho 746, 770 , 452 P.3d 768, 792 (2019) (quoting State v. Card, 121 Idaho 425, 430 , 825 P.2d 1081, 1086 (1991)). 2022Idaho Code section 18-207 “expressly allows admission of expert evidence on the issues of mens rea or any state of mind which is an element of the crime.” State v. Samuel, 165 Idaho 746, 770 , 452 P.3d 768, 792 (2019) (quoting State v. Card, 121 Idaho 425, 430 , 825 P.2d 1081, 1086 (1991)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Samuelgreen2 sentences2022Idaho Code section 18-207 “expressly allows admission of expert evidence on the issues of mens rea or any state of mind which is an element of the crime.” State v. Samuel, 165 Idaho 746, 770 , 452 P.3d 768, 792 (2019) (quoting State v. Card, 121 Idaho 425, 430 , 825 P.2d 1081, 1086 (1991)). 2022Idaho Code section 18-207 “expressly allows admission of expert evidence on the issues of mens rea or any state of mind which is an element of the crime.” State v. Samuel, 165 Idaho 746, 770 , 452 P.3d 768, 792 (2019) (quoting State v. Card, 121 Idaho 425, 430 , 825 P.2d 1081, 1086 (1991)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Powell v. Texas
green
2 sentences2011In Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 , 88 S.Ct. 2145 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1968), the Supreme Court stated: [TJhis court has never articulated a general constitutional doctrine of mens rea. 2011In Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 , 88 S.Ct. 2145 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1968), the Supreme Court stated: [TJhis court has never articulated a general constitutional doctrine of mens rea. | 3 | 1990–2011 |
United States v. Todd Tykarsky A/K/A Toddyty63 A/K/A Golpher12345
green
2 sentences2015If criminal laws could not look to intent and motivation to distinguish lawful conduct from unlawful conduct, virtually every crime with a mens rea requirement would be invalidated on the ground that it constitutes a “thought crime.” For example, buying a gun and standing outside someone’s home may be perfectly legal, but doing so with the subjective intent of shooting the person who comes out could constitute attempted murder. 5 Id. at 472 . 2015Id. at 472 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Peters
green
2 sentences2014Despite Ortega’s contrary argument, Peters, 116 Idaho at 855 , 780 P.2d at 606 provides no basis for the giving of a special instruction. 2014Despite Ortega’s contrary argument, Peters, 116 Idaho at 855 , 780 P.2d at 606 provides no basis for the giving of a special instruction. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Fox
green
2 sentences2012As such, the only mens rea requirement is that the person know that he or she is in possession of the substance. 1 Fox, 124 Idaho at 926 , 866 P.2d at 183 . 2012As such, the only mens rea requirement is that the person know that he or she is in possession of the substance. 1 Fox, 124 Idaho at 926 , 866 P.2d at 183 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Korell
green
2 sentences1990The court concluded that the mens rea doctrine was responsible for the earliest manifestations of the insanity defense, in that any ancient criminal legal precepts regarding the mentally ill were founded on the idea that "one who lacks the requisite criminal state of mind may not be convicted or punished." Id. 1990The court concluded that the mens rea doctrine was responsible for the earliest manifestations of the insanity defense, in that any ancient criminal legal precepts regarding the mentally ill were founded on the idea that “one who lacks the requisite criminal state of mind may not be convicted or punished.” Id. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Lange
green
2 sentences1990Those cases are State v. Lange, 168 La. 958 , 123 So. 639 (1929); Sinclair v. State, 161 Miss. 142 , 132 So. 581 (1931); and State v. Strasburg, 60 Wash. 106 , 110 P. 1020 (1910). [7] I.C. § 19-5306 provides in pertinent part: (1) Upon request, each victim of a felony offense shall be: ..... (b) Consulted by the presentence investigator during preparation of the presentence report and have included in that report a statement of the impact which the defendant's criminal conduct has upon the victim; (c) Afforded the opportunity to address under oath, the court at sentencing; ... . [8] I.C.R. 32 1990Those cases are State v. Lange, 168 La. 958 , 123 So. 639 (1929); Sinclair v. State, 161 Miss. 142 , 132 So. 581 (1931); and State v. Strasburg, 60 Wash. 106 , 110 P. 1020 (1910). [7] I.C. § 19-5306 provides in pertinent part: (1) Upon request, each victim of a felony offense shall be: ..... (b) Consulted by the presentence investigator during preparation of the presentence report and have included in that report a statement of the impact which the defendant's criminal conduct has upon the victim; (c) Afforded the opportunity to address under oath, the court at sentencing; ... . [8] I.C.R. 32 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Sinclair v. State
green
2 sentences1990Those cases are State v. Lange, 168 La. 958 , 123 So. 639 (1929); Sinclair v. State, 161 Miss. 142 , 132 So. 581 (1931); and State v. Strasburg, 60 Wash. 106 , 110 P. 1020 (1910). [7] I.C. § 19-5306 provides in pertinent part: (1) Upon request, each victim of a felony offense shall be: ..... (b) Consulted by the presentence investigator during preparation of the presentence report and have included in that report a statement of the impact which the defendant's criminal conduct has upon the victim; (c) Afforded the opportunity to address under oath, the court at sentencing; ... . [8] I.C.R. 32 1990Those cases are State v. Lange, 168 La. 958 , 123 So. 639 (1929); Sinclair v. State, 161 Miss. 142 , 132 So. 581 (1931); and State v. Strasburg, 60 Wash. 106 , 110 P. 1020 (1910). [7] I.C. § 19-5306 provides in pertinent part: (1) Upon request, each victim of a felony offense shall be: ..... (b) Consulted by the presentence investigator during preparation of the presentence report and have included in that report a statement of the impact which the defendant's criminal conduct has upon the victim; (c) Afforded the opportunity to address under oath, the court at sentencing; ... . [8] I.C.R. 32 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Beam
green
2 sentences1990Fulton, The Insanity Defense and its Alternatives: A Guide for Policymakers, Institute on Mental Disability and the Law, National Center for State Courts (October 1983). [4] I.C. § 18-207(c) provides: "Nothing herein is intended to prevent the admission of expert evidence on the issues of mens rea or any state of mind which is an element of the offense, subject to the rules of evidence." [5] Although the Court in Powell stated that "this court has never articulated a general constitutional doctrine of mens rea, " the Idaho state statutory scheme retains on the prosecution the burden of proving 1990Fulton, The Insanity Defense and its Alternatives: A Guide for Policymakers, Institute on Mental Disability and the Law, National Center for State Courts (October 1983). [4] I.C. § 18-207(c) provides: "Nothing herein is intended to prevent the admission of expert evidence on the issues of mens rea or any state of mind which is an element of the offense, subject to the rules of evidence." [5] Although the Court in Powell stated that "this court has never articulated a general constitutional doctrine of mens rea, " the Idaho state statutory scheme retains on the prosecution the burden of proving | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Strasburg
green
2 sentences1990Those cases are State v. Lange, 168 La. 958 , 123 So. 639 (1929); Sinclair v. State, 161 Miss. 142 , 132 So. 581 (1931); and State v. Strasburg, 60 Wash. 106 , 110 P. 1020 (1910). [7] I.C. § 19-5306 provides in pertinent part: (1) Upon request, each victim of a felony offense shall be: ..... (b) Consulted by the presentence investigator during preparation of the presentence report and have included in that report a statement of the impact which the defendant's criminal conduct has upon the victim; (c) Afforded the opportunity to address under oath, the court at sentencing; ... . [8] I.C.R. 32 1990Those cases are State v. Lange, 168 La. 958 , 123 So. 639 (1929); Sinclair v. State, 161 Miss. 142 , 132 So. 581 (1931); and State v. Strasburg, 60 Wash. 106 , 110 P. 1020 (1910). [7] I.C. § 19-5306 provides in pertinent part: (1) Upon request, each victim of a felony offense shall be: ..... (b) Consulted by the presentence investigator during preparation of the presentence report and have included in that report a statement of the impact which the defendant's criminal conduct has upon the victim; (c) Afforded the opportunity to address under oath, the court at sentencing; ... . [8] I.C.R. 32 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.